The Surface of Buddhism: Introduction
by Guest Contributor (and frequent commenter) Atlasien
The “religion” tag at Racialicious pulls up pieces that are almost entirely focused on Islam. There’s not much coverage of other minority religions yet. I’m pointing this out not to blame — after all, to be published in Racialicious, you have to submit pieces in the first place — but rather to open up the topic for thoughtful discussion, and explain my motivation for writing about Buddhism here.
I can think of several reasons for the number of Islam-related pieces right off the top of my head: the prevalence of Islamophobia and the racialization of Muslims. There’s no corresponding “Buddhophobia”. A white Buddhist is rarely regarded as a freak of nature. Instead of being hated and feared, symbols of my religion are commonly sold in the Home & Garden section of chain stores! Buddhism appears to be eminently compatible with modern American society.
But if you look closely, you’ll see some ripples on the surface…
The overall aim of this series is to discuss how issues of race and ethnicity intersect with the image and reality of Buddhism in the United States. It’s a huge topic so I’ll try to make it more manageable by establishing what this series won’t do. After I provide a very brief historical introduction to Buddhism, I won’t go much deeper into teachings or philosophy, especially since I’m ignorant about so much of it beyond the basics and have zero qualifications as that kind of teacher. I’m going to stick to the surface, to superficial perceptions, stereotypes, illusions, skin color… although what’s on the surface usually connects to other issues which go very, very deep.
I’m going to be discussing a lot of generalizations about different religions. I’ll try to be as sensitive as possible and differentiate my own fairly neutral views. I might offend various kinds of believers, but once I get farther along, I think that the most passionate objections are going to come from other Buddhists. Contrary to popular belief, we’re a fractious bunch. I’ll try to steel myself.
My own background in Buddhism is rather unique. I was half born into it, half converted.
Back in the 6th century BCE, Buddhism began in India based on the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha. Several hundred years later, the Indian king Asoka converted to Buddhism. This was a huge turning point in the religion. Asoka sponsored massive efforts to spread Buddhism through peaceful means. One wave entered Sri Lanka, became Theravada Buddhism, and from there spread across Southeast Asia. Other waves went overland and became Mahayana Buddhism in China and Vajrayana Buddhism in Tibet. The influence of Buddhism waned within India as it became stronger in the East.
The fact that Buddhism has diminished so much in its birthplace is, naturally, a sore spot for many Buddhists. In 1948, a Cambodian monk, Bhante Dharmawara, came to India in order to work towards reestablishing Buddhism. In his life before monkhood, he came from an influential family, and was probably able to draw on these connections to establish the Asoka Mission near New Delhi. According to one story, he mystically cured the sick uncle of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Whatever happened, Bhante and Nehru developed an extremely close relationship, and Nehru sponsored and helped the Mission as much as possible. Nehru himself was a firm agnostic known for his support of secularism and distrust of Hindu fundamentalism.
In the 1970s, my parents came to live at the Asoka Mission. The Mission was centered around a group of monks, but anyone at all was welcome, especially if they pitched in to help.
My mother left the US in the 1960s, mainly for political reasons and disgust at the Vietnam War. She lived on small remittances from her parents, and odd jobs: janitorial and agricultural work, housesitting, and so on. She first went to India to explore her belief in Buddhism. My father, a Japanese fellow hippie, ran into her at the Ajanta Buddhist caves. They fell in love and began to sync up their migrations, since my father’s job also involved a lot of travel. I came along a few years later.
I have fond memories of the Mission. The land was beautiful. Even the dust struck me as having a beautiful color to it. I wandered around anywhere I wanted. The monks were always nice and smiled at me. Sometimes they gave me fun, important jobs like squeezing behind the statues to give them a dusting.
My mother valued her time there and the opportunity to hear Bhante speak. He was an important guide for her. But the living conditions were rough. Every night, she would wrap up our provisions and hang them from the ceiling in an increasingly complicated network of ropes. Every night, the rats would sneak in, perform unbelievable acrobatic feats and grab some of the food anyway. We were used to rough living, but according to my mother’s complaints, the rats were a minor annoyance compared to the heroin addicts. The Mission did not turn people away, and many of those people were hippies who’d fallen as low as you can go in a city where you could buy a fix for a nickel. The stress of shielding children from the sight of drooling passed-out junkies became too much for my mother to put up with. She did a good job, though… when I think back over my time there, I don’t remember seeing anything traumatic.
My father is a Japanese Buddhist in much the same way as my mother’s parents were white American Christians. You’re born into a faith, it’s your heritage, it’s an important part of transitions, such as death, but other than that, it tends to fade into the background of your life.
My first real introduction to a different way of living a religion came around the second grade, in public school in the United States. I was one of those kids that loved dinosaurs. I met another kid in my class that loved dinosaurs too… and he was also the only other Asian kid I knew! His family was from the Philippines. I was so happy to meet him. I was sure we would be great friends. We had so much in common. One day, as we were going through lists of our favorite dinosaurs, I mentioned something about the dinosaurs evolving. My friend was horrified. “God created dinosaurs on the sixth day,” he said. I disagreed. He never spoke to me again. The next day, as I rode my bike up to school, I was suddenly surrounded by a ring of classmates who all pointed their finger at me and chanted “you’re going to HE-ELL, you’re going to HE-ELL.”
My mother’s belief had faded somewhat in favor of an agnostic skepticism. She never joined a Buddhist community again after leaving India. She grew to believe that all religions were wrong, but that Buddhism was the least wrong. However, she still retained a strong attachment to Bhante and continued to follow his career. At the age of 90, he moved to Stockton, California to minister to a large group of Cambodian refugees who had been resettled there. Many were suffering terribly from cultural alienation and PTSD. My mother attended Bhante’s funeral when he died at the age of 110 after decades of service to the refugee community.
Steven Seagal had lately become a student of Bhante, and the funeral was actually delayed for a little bit in order for Seagal to attend, because his flight was late. Bhante’s Cambodian relatives put a good face on it, but one of them did end up snarking to my mother, “couldn’t he just jump out of the plane, like in one of his movies?”
These rambling anecdotes of my family history contain the seeds of what I want to discuss when it comes to Buddhism. First of all, Buddhism stakes its claim as a universal religion. Many (not all) strands of Buddhism don’t proselytize aggressively, but Buddhism is supposed to be for everyone. No one should be turned away, no matter how obnoxious. Not even heroin addicts abusing their American privilege in a poverty-stricken but generous country. Not even (ugh) Steven Seagal. Second, Buddhism is a worldly religion. It’s highly interwoven with race, class, ethnicity, politics and economics. Third, Buddhism is highly variable, and contains huge internal conflicts that rarely come to the attention of outsiders. Fourth, Buddhists in America have had to evolve unique ways of surviving in this culturally Christian nation.
The next installment of the series — Is Buddhism the Anti-Islam? — will talk more about cultural Christianity and how Buddhism and Islam are often stereotyped as polar opposites from a culturally Christian perspective. Complicity and Conflict will discuss representations of global power struggles involving Buddhism, including examples in which Buddhism has been complicit in state repression. Yes, I will be touching Tibet, but gingerly, with a ten-foot pole. Converts and Immigrants will outline the sociology and history of Buddhism in the United States, and provide an alternate narrative than the one in which white converts represent the face of modern American Buddhism. I might change the order and add or subtract from the series based on comments and suggestions, so feel free to comment on other issues you want to hear about. I might not have the space to include it, but I’ll probably try.
—–
Postscript: Although this really belongs more to the later part of the series, I have to mention that there has been a recent blog tempest over some remarks by C.N. Le at Asian Nation.
C.N. Le is Vietnamese-American professor with a PhD in sociology. He’s very well-known and respected in the Asian-American blogosphere. On July 15th, he wrote a post describing his family’s experience at a Buddhist retreat. He mentioned a couple of white Buddhists who did not clean up after themselves, and suggested that just possibly maybe occasionally provisionally perhaps perhaps perhaps… white privilege was involved. The right of C.N. Le to make this rather mild criticism was noted and defended by the few Buddhist bloggers who have a sophisticated awareness on racial issues (the ones I know about are Angry Asian Buddhist and The Buddha is my DJ). Thank goodness for them. Otherwise, the reaction from Buddhist blogs appears to consist entirely of ridiculous racial hysteria and sanctimonious dharma-beating. For example, This person’s post can be summarized as “I AM A PERSECUTED WHITE MAN!! C.N. LE IS THE ASIAN KKK!! AND I BET HE DOESN’T EVEN HAVE A REAL SOCIOLOGY DEGREE NYAH NYAH NYAH!!”. And this is from a blog called “Progressive Buddhism”. Sigh…
I didn’t want to get to this sort of stuff until the later part of the series, but I’ll provide a brief preview right now. Below is a mathematical equation containing elements that combine to form my perspective as an Asian-American Buddhist contemplating the persecution of a white American Buddhist.
-
(almost all the problems experienced by white Buddhists) +
(extra problems experienced in general by people of color Buddhists) +
(extra problems experienced only by Asian-American Buddhists) – (-white privilege) =
STFU
I can’t speak for all other Asian-Americans but I imagine more than a few of them share my reaction. It’s why I don’t bother participating in these sorts of communities. I don’t feel like being insulted, ignored and erased when I try to connect to my religion. My only message to them: I’ve already heard everything you’ve had to say. I’ve even experienced it along with you. You haven’t done the same for me. Let me know when you’re ready to start listening.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
ansel wrote:
You tell ‘em! So unfortunate, and sort of hilarious, that that blog is called “Progressive Buddhism.”
I’m super excited about this series, looking forward to the next entry – thanks Atlasien!
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 10:50 am ¶
BSK wrote:
First off, welcome and thanks for contributing atlasien.
My first question, and perhaps this will be addressed later or deliberately not at all, has to do with the distinction between philosophy and religion. I have offered heard buddhism described as philosophy (sometimes pejoratively, sometimes not) and not religion. My basic understanding is that religions have some sort of “higher being” where philosophies do not. Can you shed any light on this? Personally, the distinction is not that important as far as I’m concerned, as I don’t necessarily see a need to make such designations in otherwise legitimate worldviews, but it seems very important in some circles, and I’d like to be more knowledgeable on the subject.
Thanks!
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 11:19 am ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:
I especially like the part about white privilege and white Buddhists. Sadly, I think white privilege can be applied for all religions, especially “non-Western” religions like Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, just to name a few others.
I look forward to the Buddhism/Islam post. I’m also sick and tired of hearing white people claiming that Buddhism is sooooo peaceful, while Islam is ohh soo violent and hateful!
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 11:19 am ¶
Lin wrote:
Wow, your experiences in America nearly mirror mine exactly. Coming from a predominantly white, Catholic high school to a less-predominantly white, Baptist university, I’ve sought this type of discussion for years. Thank you for opening this series.
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 11:35 am ¶
Joseph wrote:
@atlasien
Thanks for writing this, I am really looking forward to the series.
Everything I know about Buddhism I learned writing about Thich Quong Duc and other lesser known Buddhist monks and nuns who immolated themselves to protest the Vietnam war for my dissertation. The discourse around these acts of self-destruction and Buddhism is shockingly similar to that around suicide bombing and Islam.
(ATTENTION: Please do not bother sending me a comment about the ways these two practices are different, that is NOT my point: I am talking about the way white/Christian/western authority considered them and what they said about them at the time. Thank you.)
I have a bunch of articles about Buddhist peace activism/martyrdom that might be interesting to your for your “Anti-Islam” piece, especially if a “culturally Christian perspective” is the theme. I am happy to pass along the PDFs, Latoya can put us in touch if you like.
Also: I have friends in the (self-described) Jew-Bu community here in New York. In fact, until I read your post I hadn’t realized that I have never met an Asian Buddhist because all of the Buddhists I know are culturally Jewish. Not sure how or if that fits into your narrative about “Converts and Immigrants”, but I thought I’d bring it up.
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 11:52 am ¶
spice wrote:
Thank you for posting this! I look forward to the rest of the series, it’s so exciting to see Buddhism here at Racialicious!
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 12:02 pm ¶
AJ Plaid wrote:
:::wild applause:::
I’m thrilled to see this series and your posts, atlasien!
Can’t wait to read more…
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 12:25 pm ¶
Nilesh wrote:
As a South Asian, I grew up in a Hindu household. A few years ago I embraced Buddhism. I am seeing the intersection of race and religion as the majority of Dharma centers in my city are predominately white. I really look forward to this series and discussions around this topic.
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 12:27 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
Thanks all! Just a few responses for now…
@BSK: I’d disagree strongly with the commonly encountered idea that Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion. People often say it from two extremes: negative (”Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion, because Buddhism is deficient and bad”) and positive (”Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion, because religion is deficient and bad”).
Both groups of people have agendas I don’t agree with. Either they’re attacking Buddhism, or they’re trying to redefine Buddhism in a way that ignores what the vast majority of global Buddhists believe. I’ll get more into that redefinition stuff closer to the end of the series.
I definitely don’t think that a “higher being” should be a basis for defining religion… for defining monotheism, sure, but not for all religion. There are many religions where a unitary higher being is either absent or not important.
I can’t fully define philosophy or religion because so many people have different definitions of each one. In the very broadest sense, philosophies are just systems of thinking, whereas religions are more specific systems of thinking that share certain common elements such as rituals and hierarchies of specialists (priests/rabbis/monks/sheikhs/shamans etc.) Every religion has a philosophy, but not every philosophy has a religion… when philosophies don’t have a religious infrastructure, they’ll use other kinds of infrastructure to propagate, such as universities and TV and books and seminars and so on.
@Joseph: I’m definitely planning on talking about the immolation photograph and would love to see the PDFs… you can email me at atlasien dash blog at yahoo dot com.
I’m not that knowledgeable about why there’s been such a close link between between liberal Judaism and Buddhism in America, but I’m definitely going to note it in the Converts section and provide at least one link to a narrative about it.
@Nilesh: the relationship between Hinduism and Buddhism is something I’m still trying to figure out where to fit in the series… developments in 20th century India are fascinating. This is a huge generalization, but for people who don’t know the first thing about the topic, imagine something vaguely like the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. Buddhism grew out of early Hinduism. There’s mutual respect and familiarity but also some major antagonism. I’m going to talk about mostly in terms of how the U.S. media viewpoint handles (or doesn’t handle) political issues such as the treatment of Tamils in Sri Lanka, and the struggle of Dalit Buddhist converts in India.
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 12:47 pm ¶
sejw wrote:
I’m delighted to see this topic explored. I am a biracial African American woman (Black/White) who was raised Nichiren Daishonin Buddhist. My Black father is the one who introduced it to me, and the one who still chants gongyo and daimoku every morning and evening.
Two thoughts come to mind:
The Soka Gakkai community center that my father attends is the most ethnically diverse religious gathering I’ve ever experienced (context: growing up in a mostly white suburb of a still very segregated Northern town). White, Black, Indian, Hispanic, Asian, young, old, etc.
Second, when I mention my father’s religious practice to others, I say, “You know, Tina Turner Buddhism!” It’s a nice thing to have an African American woman be one of the most recognizable (in the West) faces of this particular branch of Buddhism.
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 1:01 pm ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
Nice! As a white guy who left Christianity to become a Muslim, this is an interesting topic.
The white convert issue is a huge one in the Muslim community and I am sure I will enjoy reading about that in your work.
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 2:06 pm ¶
Danny wrote:
This is an interesting post, can’t wait to read the next installment.
I grew up with the Christian church (Evangelical-A.G. to be more specific). However, I couldn’t stand it anymore for many reasons and left after being there for almost 20 years (starting from toddler age). Some of these Buddhist teachings I read were quite helpful in finding inner peace and facing reality. It wasn’t sutras but more like articles I read from Buddhist teachers, monks and the Triangle (or Tri-something) Magazine.
I don’t know the distinctions between religion or philosophy as in the case of Buddhism. From my time with Christians, they always pounded that idea that this was an idolatrous religion associated with the devil…telling me with a straight face.
I mean, my family has Buddhists too and I’m at least familiar with some of the ideas, but for some people who just look at it from the outside, I have no words to say for those judgemental people. The Buddhism among the Chinese community is combined with other beliefs so in a way, they are worshipping a “higher power”…on the other hand, mentally speaking, the balance between the supernatural, spirituality and secular is not as polarizing as outsiders see it and…it’s hard to explain for me but maybe others can do this better.
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 2:33 pm ¶
Matt K. wrote:
Religious studies is part of my double major so this is more than relevant to my interests. I can already tell this is going to be a great series.
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 2:39 pm ¶
Marco wrote:
Thanks for the post atlasien! I’m very much looking forward to the next installments to this series
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 3:08 pm ¶
Aishtamid wrote:
@atlasien –
About Jew-Bus: I’m not one of them but I know a few. They seem to make up a big percentage of the white Buddhist community. My two cents here is that Buddhism is seen to them as exotic and less threatening than Christianity. Buddhism has surprisingly little theological conflict with Judaism, which feels safer than exploring Christianity to most Jews as Christian ideas about Jesus are most contradictory to Judaism.
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 3:31 pm ¶
Lauren O wrote:
“I have seen this phrase a lot, “privileged white people”, and I can tell you it is no less offensive than the words “privileged Asian people” when describing an entire race of people.”
Well, if he’s seen it a lot, then surely he must know more about it than we do. We should just shut up, since we haven’t seen the phrase a lot.
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 3:35 pm ¶
Aishtamid wrote:
** Meant to say “more contradictory to Judaism”
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 3:36 pm ¶
Matt wrote:
Aishtamid, atlasien,
I am a buju, and I know several. About 30% of American converts* to Buddhism are Jewish. I also know others who have adopted Buddhism from other backgrounds. I think a lot of it starts with being driven away from Western religions that have been harmful on a personal level for a lot of people. For many Christians and Jews strict hierarchies or authoritarian teachers pushed people away from the religions of their parents. Additionally, for many Jews there’s more to it. (I only know one mubu, so I won’t attempt to speak about that.) Buddhism offers the advantage that it doesn’t share in that same history, and also that it’s typically non- or even anti-dogmatic. Buddhism doesn’t ask anyone to “convert” and often cautions against it. Plenty of people take up Buddhist practice without ever giving up any part of an identity they may have had before – hence bujus, jubus, mubus, etc. That’s why I put an asterisk next to the word “convert” above. For people who feel harmed by religion, and for Jews who hate the very idea of evangelism, that’s welcoming in particularly valued way. Also, Judaism doesn’t treat adopting Buddhism as converting away from Judaism — I don’t know much about the reasoning, but I’ve heard it’s because it’s hard to not keep kosher if you’re a vegetarian.
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 5:19 pm ¶
erin wrote:
I am SO excited about this series – really good work.
Atlasien’s comment “Every religion has a philosophy, but not every philosophy has a religion… ” is the perfect way to break that down.
I grew up Catholic, and tried for a long time to be religious/spiritual. None of it really took, although Mahayana Buddhism came the closest. There are a LOT of former Catholics in Mahayana Buddhism – I think it’s because the Mahayana tradition is so much more ritualistic that it’s familiar and soothing to Catholics who are used to rituals.
Sometimes I say that I’m philosophically Buddhist, but having read this, now I wonder if that’s a narrow and offensive way to put it. I guess what I mean is that I really agree with a lot of the precepts of the Buddhism that I’ve learned, but that I don’t practice. I’ll have to think and learn more, I guess.
Really looking forward to more on this – thank you.
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 6:28 pm ¶
Morpho wrote:
@Matt – From a Jewish POV, being a Jubu or a Buju is not viewed as a conversion (and thus compatible with being Jewish) because Buddhism is considered not to have deities.
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 7:07 pm ¶
ktrujillo wrote:
Matt’s post reminded me of Leonard Cohen who is an observant Jew and was for quite a while a Buddhist monk. There are many Christians and Jews who are drawn to schools of Buddhism that do not involve affirmation of a deity. I am reminded of Thomas Merton who was in close relationship with D.T. Suzuki and Thich Nhat Hanh even though he was a Catholic monk. His embrace of zazen helped usher a revival of Christian meditative practice.
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 7:09 pm ¶
ktrujillo wrote:
because Buddhism is considered not to have deities.
****
Excuse the double post but is this true of all schools of Buddhism or just some?
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 7:25 pm ¶
InJM wrote:
I had no idea there were people going about the “persecuted white buddhist” line. I didn’t even know it existed. There’s enough juicy politics and strife in Buddhism without any racial tints as it is, just like every other religion, I suppose.
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 7:56 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
This looks to be really interesting. My grandmother was raised as a Buddhist, and married a Jew, so the “Buju” thing is to me, sort ‘a funny as it mirrors my own family.
I’d agree with the Matt above who noted that Buddhism is less threatening than Christianity to most Jews. Buddhists didn’t invent the death camps, or pogroms, or any of that stuff, so the painful part of the shared history ain’t there.
This isn’t to buy into the tired old stereotype of “peaceful Buddhists,” (I am sure a number of Japanese soldiers and ancient Tibetan warriors saw and see themselves as perfectly acceptable Buddhists) but it wasn’t them who visited the litany of horrors on Jews that Christians did.
My own contact with Buddhism is through Zen, mostly, reading Daisetz Suzuki first. I always thought Suzuki was a little opaque, personally, but that might be when I was reading it (I was in my 20s). It might also be the translations.
I re-read some of his stuff on swordsmanship, and that I got into (again), but I also teach a karate class and that probably has a lot to do with making it easier for me to understand.
In fact, altasien, I wonder if you are going to touch on Suzuki, since he seems to be the go to guy (or was) for a lot of Americans who got into Buddhism back in the day. At least his books are the ones on the shelf that I used to see alot of.
And I did find in Zen a lot to connect with, as I had so many issues with anger management, and I found Zen texts a heck of a lot more helpful than anything else.
In fact, I would posit that a common point of contact with bits and pieces of Buddhism (Zen in particular) for a lot of Americans is via the martial arts, even if they don’t realize it.
Yeah, there’s a lot of stupid pseudo-mystic Zen crap out there, but I found the whole concept of losing oneself in the doing of whatever it is (I have a couple of favorite Japanese Zen stories about that, and one is all about cleaning a fish and the other is about Bobo Roshi) to be really, really helpful and even comforting. Or at least I found it so. And I wouldn’t call myself a Buddhist, even.
(And for the record, I think Steven Seagal is just plain silly, and if you think David Carradine’s career was racist, I suggest you sit through a couple of Seagal flicks. I can’t judge the man’s commitment to Buddhism, but the rest of it… Ye gods).
And finally, I think one of my favorite “Buddhist” movies is Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter… and Spring Again. It’s a little hokey, but I think it gets across a lot of the stuff in Zen relatively well, and I always thought more Americans interested in Buddhism ought to watch it.
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 8:00 pm ¶
BSK wrote:
Atlasien-
Thanks for the info! I hope my question didn’t seem to be implying the two viewpoints you mentioned. If so, I apologize. It never felt right to me the way people made the distinction (it generally seemed charged one way or another, as you pointed out), but I didn’t know enough to really respond. I agree that the line is somewhat hazy between the two and time wasted trying to fit one belief system into an amorphous category only creates discord. Thanks for your work on this topic!
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 8:20 pm ¶
Angry Asian Buddhist wrote:
Thank you for your very kind comments about my writing. I look forward to your future posts!
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 8:34 pm ¶
BSK wrote:
Reading the rest of the posts, I’ve seen a few comments as to the lack of “deities” in Buddhism. Without rehashing the philosophy/religion debate (as I’ve stated, it’s not particularly relevant to me), is it true that Buddhism does not have deities? Again, please pardon my ignorance, but I’d prefer to learn from people who practice Buddhism than read about it on Wikipedia. In terms of self-education, are there specific texts within Buddhism or other resources that would be particularly informative to the uninformed?
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 8:36 pm ¶
Restructure! wrote:
*does not compute*
What does this mean? Could you explain this? Mathematical symbols mean something else to me, and I don’t understand what they mean in this context.
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 9:54 pm ¶
khinky wrote:
Wow, I am so excited about the racialigious series and I’m looking forward to the buddhism posts especially. I’m southeast asian and culturally theravada buddhist. The aspects about my religion that make me uncomfortable revolve mostly around “convert buddhism” and women’s issues. (Of course, it’s also really annoying to see decapitated buddha busts sold as home decor.)
I went to a boarding school that was completely christian at the time and I remember secretly “converting” to baptism because I was so scared of going to hell. I would pray every night for my family to do the same. I dont remember how I grew out of that phase but the whole thing caused a lot of anxiety and fear for ten-year-old me. And now, my SO is Jewish and we get along fine but I’m wondering how to instil two very different religous and cultural identities into our future children. I guess we should be thankful that at least they dont clash? Maybe we’ll be lucky and the biggest issue will end up being whether to feed them seafood or not.
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 10:46 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
Gorgeous illustration!
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 10:57 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
“is it true that Buddhism does not have deities?”
Hmm… the short answer is “no”, the longer one is “it depends on your definition of a deity.”
In Theravada Buddhism, the goal is to attain enlightenment by becoming an arhat. This is insanely difficult, so the vast majority of people are never going to get there in one lifetime, but they can at least work towards getting there eventually. Is an arhat a deity? According to most definitions, probably not, but I’m not sure.
Mahayana Buddhism (and Vajrayana/Tibetan Buddhism is sort of a subset of Mahayana) use “extra” teachings that Theravada doesn’t. In Mahayana there are definitely deities, as in “supernatural beings”. In Mahayana there’s a step beyond being an arhat… you can try to become a bodhisattva, who can attain enlightenment, but chooses not to, because they’d rather wait, stay behind and work so that everyone else in the universe can attain enlightenment too. Bodhisattvas are definitely deities. Many Mahayana Buddhists believe in all kinds of deities: vicious demons, helpful gods/goddesses and everything in between. There are also Buddhas other than Shakyamuni Buddha.
The Buddhism I follow, Jodo Shinshu, is a subset of Pure Land, which takes an extreme position among Mahayana Buddhism in that a kind of near-enlightenment is possible during a single lifetime based on entrusting in the intercession of Amida Buddha. Here’s a short introduction to Jodo Shinshu. For the more visually inclined, here’s an anime version of the Smaller Amida Sutra. It’s a study in multiculturalism because it was created in Japan, but for a Chinese audience, subtitled in English and uploaded by a Romanian!
The radical difference between Buddhism and Abrahamic (Judaism/Christianity/Islam) is that there is no creator god. The question of how the universe was formed and how it will end is just not that important. The idea is that we don’t live inside a story, written by an author, that has a beginning and an end. Instead, the universe is cyclical, and determined by by a complicated web of cause and effect. Karma is nothing more and nothing less than actions taking place within the web of cause and effect. If you drop a ball, and it falls to the ground, that’s karma. As such, karma in Buddhism (and Hinduism, which I believe has the original concept) is compatible with scientific materialism (of course, when you get to reincarnation, that’s the incompatible part).
According to this worldview, gods and demons, if they are held to exist, are just as subject to karma as human beings are. They’re not in charge of history. We’re all spinning around on a wheel that no one set in motion. There is no such thing as fate.
The more I talk about this stuff, the more I’m likely to start making mistakes and overgeneralizations, since like I said, I’m not an expert. But I hope that addresses some of the questions about deities.
When it comes to philosophy versus religion… I don’t mind at all when people say “I’m just into Buddhist philosophy”. That’s basically what my mother’s perspective evolved into. You can ignore all the supernatural/metaphysical elements of Buddhism and still have a ton of useful stuff that works on the level of mind processes. But when people start saying “Buddhism is a philosophy not a religion,” that gets into some really arrogant appropriation territory. If you tell a devout Buddhist from a Buddhist country “Buddhism isn’t about deities and reincarnation” it might be sort of like telling a Christian “Christianity isn’t about Jesus Christ.” If people want to use a hybridized, stripped-down, self-help sort of Buddhism, that’s great, as long as they don’t pretend their version defines Buddhism.
Honestly, I wish I could recommend a good, short, NEUTRAL introductory essay to Buddhism. But everything I run across I’m just not finding suitable. It’s all biased in certain directions. I found one that mutated into a Theravada-bashing session halfway through, for example. Maybe someone else can post a link. The best book I read recently is Thich Nhat Hanh’s “The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching” which seems like a great general Buddhism book.
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 11:07 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
@Restructure: that was an attempt at cleverness invoking Oppression Olympics math that in retrospect fell on its face. Basically, I’m saying that many Asian-American Buddhists understand all the problems white Buddhists face, because many of us have also grown up surrounded by people who think our religion is weird, and on top of that, we have extra problems (which I’ll get into more in the later part of the series), so saying that Asian-American Buddhists have all this privilege that we use to persecute white Buddhists is… completely nuts, and not an argument I’m interested in hearing anymore.
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 11:14 pm ¶
Jack Daw wrote:
Well. The conversation begins again but hopefully with a better tone than before. Lets (me included) keep it as cool as possible.
Race, brought up in almost any context, can really bring up some movement. Throw in religion and wow…
I look forward to your postings. Your summary of you and your family’s painted an engaging picture.
Politely listening and Shutting the Fuck Up,
Jack.
Posted 24 Jul 2009 at 1:17 am ¶
Jess wrote:
BSK– I’m no expert — my contact with Buddhism is rather specific (see above) but as I understand it the whole question of whether deities exist in (Zen) Buddhism at all is an almost-nonsensical question. Kind of like asking whether you can scientifically prove that we aren’t living in the Matrix (you can’t, it isn’t a scientific question in a cleverly-enough designed system).
I do know that there are divine figures that exist in various Buddhist sects, like the stuff you see in Tibet or in Japan, figures like Kwannon, (who is a bhodisattva). But as I remember anyone can, theoretically, become a bhodisattva, with a sufficient amount of enlightenment. The texts I remember talk about this some but Suzuki in particular seems to gloss over it a bit. I am speaking of a small sub-subset of Bhuddism tho.
But I am not a practitioner in any deep way at all.
Posted 24 Jul 2009 at 7:00 am ¶
BSK wrote:
Jess and atlasien-
Thanks for the info. I guess the biggest problem is why do we let outsiders define groups they are not a part of? Or, perhaps we don’t let this happen, but why are outsiders so intent on trying to do so? I suppose it harkens back to some sort of privilege. I know there has been debate within Christianity as to whether Mormons were “true” Christians. My take was always, “Well, let them decide, as long as they are clear on what their Christianity means to them, it is not our place/right to define for them.” The idea that religion requires a narrowly defined type of deity stems fro Judeo-Christian-Islamic values that turns Greek and Roman religions into “mythologies” and Buddhism into a philosophy. Who says a religion needs a deity? And who says the deity needs to look like the standard Western conception of God?
Thank you for enlightening me. Not only did I not realize the complexity of Buddhism (though I suppose I should have assumed it, judging by how complex and varied all religions are), but I was not entirely aware of the ways in which our Western definitions of religion, deity, and other related matters are biased and limiting and demonstrate an inherent bias/privilege that we often take into these conversations!
Posted 24 Jul 2009 at 8:57 am ¶
Matt wrote:
On deities: Buddhism has mostly adopted to the view of the society in which it exists on this matter. In the West, the dominant framework Buddhism is adopting is actually psychology. But in Korea, the Gods who preceded the introduction of Buddhism are worshipped in Buddhist temples. The temples have multiple buildings and one is for the 10 judges, as they’re known. Plus one for the mountain deity (most Korean temples are on mountains – has a lot to do with Japanese occupation, plus feng shui). Though it might push one toward Zen or other specific types of Buddhism, there’s at least no need to believe in a Buddhism with deities. I’ve never thought of Boddhisatvas as deities, but certainly the statues we have around would trouble anyone concerned with idolatry.
On reincarnation: I know plenty of people who think it’s compatible with science. I do, too. Buddhism teaches that our sense of self is an illusion. It’s like we’re all hands that think there’s no larger body we’re all connected to. There’s no soul or essence that makes me me and you you — just that I’m here and you’re there. So what exactly is it that reincarnates? Maybe not the most serious, but probably the most common misconception about Buddhism is the belief that reincarnation involves a “soul.” I’m aware that I’m talking mostly for myself here, but I’m really not aware of any Buddhist groups that don’t view reincarnation through a lens of no-self.
Posted 24 Jul 2009 at 9:39 am ¶
sejw wrote:
Another interesting story: http://www.amazon.com/Meeting-Faith-Forest-Journals-Buddhist/dp/039332673X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248444111&sr=1-3
Posted 24 Jul 2009 at 10:02 am ¶
TN wrote:
Regarding that blog “Progressive Buddhism” – somebody needs to get their privilege in check and do some learning on some racism 101 *rolls eyes*
Posted 24 Jul 2009 at 11:22 am ¶
atlasien wrote:
“In the West, the dominant framework Buddhism is adopting is actually psychology.”
I have huge problems with this statement, starting with the word “West”. More later in the series.
Posted 24 Jul 2009 at 12:32 pm ¶
Matt wrote:
Really? Ok, I’ll wait.
Posted 24 Jul 2009 at 3:44 pm ¶
G531 aka EA wrote:
I have enjoyed this article as well as the comments on response. I may post this entry in my blog, as the conversation it incites is intriguing.
I do not know a great deal about Buddhism, my aunt practices a sect of Buddhism, but aside from its mode of spirituality and the light and energy that she has obtained through meditation, we have not discussed it much.
A couple of points I would like to discuss BSK’s question in response to atlasien and restructure.
“I guess the biggest problem is why do we let outsiders define groups they are not a part of? Or, perhaps we don’t let this happen, but why are outsiders so intent on trying to do so? I suppose it harkens back to some sort of privilege.”
In a conversation about spirituality, focusing on North American indigenous spiritual practices, anglo wicca, the Blackfoot woman with whom i was speaking and I made the statement, “[whites tend to] eat our food, consume our artistic products, co-opt some of our ceremonies, dieties and use our medicines.” Also, the concept of, inverting Audre Lorde’s arguement, “Do the ‘masters’ try to use the tools of the colonized to ‘liberate’ themselves?” Of course, during the conversation I was having, another question was posed, which parallels a little with the mathematical problem atlasien had cited- are they engaging with the historical realities of the community from which the practices, ceremonies and spirituality comes from? in what ways are they engaging with the privilege of their ability to convert and ‘rewrite’ it, as some of those with racial privilege tend to do?
I am excited about the possibilities of the series and what can be gained from it.
Often, when discussing racism, colonialism and religion, the focus tends to be on the conflict between Abrahamic religions, overlooking the ways in which specific sects of the institutions associated with these religions seek to silence the other as well as eradicate, overpower non-Abrahamic religions. And, of course, Christianity’s tendency to co-opt ceremonies, dieties, and significant feast days from other practices to better reify and reproduce and spread theirs.
Posted 24 Jul 2009 at 4:03 pm ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
Great post Atlasien! I too am excited about this series and the Racialigious series in general.
I’d be interested to hear more of your thoughts on the Buddhist=peaceful assumption.
I remember listening to an episode of Sunday Night Safran awhile back where John Safran pointed out that Pol Pot, one of the worst mass murderers in history, was in fact Buddhist. But people don’t often think/talk about that.
Btw, for those interested in religion as it intersects with culture and politics, I’d highly recommend Safran’s show. It’s based in Australia but you can listen to the podcast here:
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/safran/
Also, I had Safran on Addicted to Race awhile back to discuss his series “Safran vs. God”:
http://tinyurl.com/kkt9z5
Posted 24 Jul 2009 at 4:33 pm ¶
Kyle wrote:
Thanks for the nod, but your quote of me was tottaly off base. But anyway, if you read through all the commets you’ll see what I was really trying to say.
I’d love to talk more about this in a less hostile way, but if you can’t see in the slightest that Le’s commets could be considered offensive to some than there is a lot bigger problem in understanding.
If you are going to quote me, please use actual words I wrote. Can we have a more civil discussion about this? I hope so, I really do.
Thanks and be well.
Posted 24 Jul 2009 at 5:33 pm ¶
Jha wrote:
Oh, I am so excited for this series, atlasien! I grew up Buddhist in Malaysia, which in a way is Taoist, or something else, syncretized with a form of paganism / animism. I studied Theravadan Buddhism in high school, but eventually some of the philosophies drove me away from the religion. Now I say I worship Bodhisatva Kuan Yin (aka Goddess of Mercy) but I wouldn’t say I do it in a Buddhist fashion. I’m very much looking forward to the rest of your analysis on how Buddhism is interacted with!!
Posted 24 Jul 2009 at 6:06 pm ¶
ktrujillo wrote:
You can ignore all the supernatural/metaphysical elements of Buddhism and still have a ton of useful stuff that works on the level of mind processes.
******
Would a Theravada Buddhist say they were ignoring supernatural elements of Buddhism?
If you tell a devout Buddhist from a Buddhist country “Buddhism isn’t about deities and reincarnation” it might be sort of like telling a Christian “Christianity isn’t about Jesus Christ.”
Are all schools of Buddhism “about deities”? I have been to several talks at the Theravada temple near my home and the monks have made it pretty clear that deities have nothing to do with Buddhism as they practice it. Most of them are from SE Asia…maybe it’s regional?
Interestingly, there are many ‘Christian atheists’ who follow the teachings of Jesus but reject a supernatural interpretation and hold no belief in God or the afterlife.
Posted 24 Jul 2009 at 7:58 pm ¶
leftofemma wrote:
Very excited about this series – especially Complicity and Conflict. The way that Buddhism has been appropriated has always been interesting to me. What I see in my family’s home and what I see at Target are not the same.
I’ve found that the label progressive doesn’t mean the same thing that it did 5 or ten years ago. If he can’t understand the basic definition of white privilege and its effects, he should maybe rename the blog to something more moderate sounding.
Posted 24 Jul 2009 at 8:47 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
@ktrujillo: I can’t speak for Theravada Buddhists in this area, although I think the answer would depend on whether you’re using either a loose or strict definition of “supernatural”. For example, in Thailand, there’s widespread belief in the power of certain amulets.
The answer to your second question depends, again, on whether you’re using a loose or strict definition of “deity”. Deity in the Christian sense… no. Deity as “powerful figure”… qualified yes, across several different schools.
Christian atheists are an interesting parallel.
@Kyle: I hope you are well too, but I don’t see much possibility of further discussion along the line you drew. The reason is that your post and ensuing comments were composed of silencing attacks that many people used to racial discussion have seen time and time again. Here is a good list of such attacks. “The Fallacious Flip” and “The Drunken Dealer” are the main ones I saw.
I’ll try to explain using a class analogy, since you touched on class. Let’s say I’m talking to a friend, another parent, and they said to me, “I put my child in private school __, it would be irresponsible not to do that!” I go home and complain to another friend, “they didn’t understand I can’t afford $15k a year, but I still love my child. I bet it’s their class privilege that blinded them to the fact that I might feel that way. So I know they didn’t intend to insult me, but I still feel ignored and insulted. And I’m also upset because someone I thought was a friend isn’t acting like one.”
My other friend says, “But I’m upper-class too! How dare you complain about class! You’re accusing me of being arrogant and cruel. You hate all of us. I’m insulted… any pain you experienced as a result of the episode you’re complaining about (which you just hallucinated anyway) is nothing compared to the insult that I’ve now suffered from you. Also, COMMUNIST POGROMS. Also, I’m going to question the validity of your academic credentials.”
I don’t question that you feel true pain about the issue. However, I think you need to place that pain in context and think about its causes (why you’ve been conditioned to feel it) and its effects (adding to the weight of voices calling for the silence of people who have often been forcibly silenced in the past).
Posted 24 Jul 2009 at 11:16 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
@Carmen: I’ll have to listen to that this weekend. I saw most of the “Safran versus God” series. The part where he went to Japan to study Zen, kept getting whacked with the stick for messing up, and tried cheating by using the “Buddhism for Dummies” book… that was absolutely hilarious.
Posted 24 Jul 2009 at 11:21 pm ¶
ktrujillo wrote:
Sorry, should have said the monks are from Thailand and Laos.
Posted 24 Jul 2009 at 11:46 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
@BSK — something worth remembering is that the Abrahamic religions are very much from the same cultural milieu as a lot of Greek and later Roman ideas. That is, the whole concept of a personal deity as outlined in early Christian texts, especially, draws a huge amount from Greek philosophy. The idea of a single deity goes all the way back to Plato and Socrates (in fact, in all of the Socratic dialogue “God” is taken as a given).
That said, Greek and Roman religions (for instance) are classed as “mythologies” because nobody practices them anymore. I mean, maybe there’s a bunch of Hera-worshippers out there someplace, but the fact is the culture that we associate with Greek and Roman worship doesn’t really exist anymore.
(Modern Greek culture would be utterly foreign and weird to an ancient Athenian, and the same goes for a 1st century Roman walking the streets of Milan. This is not to say those cultures don’t have strong influences that resonate even today– but we’ve had 2,000 years of conquests, a major religious upheaval, and all kinds of other stuff. People can try to revive things occasionally — the modern wicca movement is an example — but it doesn’t usually bear much resemblance to the originals as practiced then).
I mean, most Christians (even ‘cultural’ ones) take the existence of God as a fact as incontrovertible as existence itself. So it’s hard for people in those cultures to class Christianity that way. Jesus also lived within historical times, and we can find references to the world he lived in that are extra-Biblical, so it isn’t like the stories of Hercules and the twelve labors where you don’t have as much of that, or even the Norse stories of Odin et al.
Buddhism becomes complicated, because it looks at the whole concept of divinity in a somewhat different way.
But that’s a bit of a different question than what you are asking. I always have problems when someone says that an outsider defines anything, because to some degree it really doesn’t matter — I’ve said before, just because a bunch of new-age nitwits decide to do funky rituals in Sedona doesn’t mean that the local native folks aren’t native anymore, and it doesn’t stop them from doing what they need to do. The guys in airports who used to be in ISKCON doesn’t make millions of Indian practitioners disappear. Kabbalah has been taken up by all sorts of fools and I can’t take that seriously in the slightest. There are Jews who practice Kabbalistic rites, and are interested, and just ignore Madonna.
Maybe that’s the solution — ignore it, or point and laugh when people do silly things.
Posted 25 Jul 2009 at 9:46 am ¶
ktrujillo wrote:
Maybe that’s the solution — ignore it, or point and laugh when people do silly things.
******
As long as they’re not entering uninvited into sacred spaces or dealing in sacred objects…all to common in the SW.
Posted 25 Jul 2009 at 2:59 pm ¶
Persia wrote:
atlasien, this series looks great, and thank you for introducing me to Angry Asian Buddhist. I think I’m in love.
Maybe that’s the solution — ignore it, or point and laugh when people do silly things.
But it’s problematic when the silly people– Madonna and Steven Segal himself come to mind– are the most visible followers of the religion.
Posted 27 Jul 2009 at 10:27 am ¶
vodalus wrote:
Aforementioned “Progressive Buhhidism” post has disappeared, depriving me of an opportunity to TskTsk, but indicating a good faith effort to address the criticism against it.
Just thought I’d share. Looking forward to seeing more insights into what ___ means to you.
(Descriptor intentionally left blank as I realized that I’m not informed enough to formulate one yet. ^_^)
Posted 01 Aug 2009 at 10:42 pm ¶
vodalus wrote:
Oh Lordy, look how I butchered the word Buddhism. That’ll teach me to post without type-checking.
Posted 01 Aug 2009 at 10:44 pm ¶