#mazard

[dottiemcfly]

[ox-head]

I do meet white people who (frankly) imagine that their (ersatz) form of Buddhism is superior to anything authentic found in contemporary Asia --or even that it is superior to anything found in ancient books. Conversely, I tend to meet Asians (including PhD-wielding scholars) who feel intimidated and powerless before Western scholarship, and before the seeming-authority of the Western rationalist version of Buddhism. Most of the energy in Asian Buddhist Studies is now expended "catching up with" European research of the 19th century --and, sadly, that research is regarded quite uncritically (with many of its biases and distortions accepted wholesale).

Eisel Mazard

[ox-head]

[There] are plenty of traditional Asian Buddhists who believe in ghosts and demons who are (nevertheless) much more sane and knowledgeable about Buddhism than the majority of white people who believe in a form of the religion that is largely their own personal invention (or an ersatz combination of parts borrowed from self-help books sold in airport lounges, etc.). Is the difference between the two really a difference of "practice"? Is it really a difference of "belief"? The supposedly "secular Buddhists" are all the more true believers, despite their insistence to the contrary (as they've taken the ghost-feeding rituals out of Buddhism, etc.). The situation echoes the Communists, who thought they had accomplished something great by repudiating religion in general, only to discover that they were bound into a religion of their own creation ("Dialectical Materialism", etc. etc.) --and it was a religion no less unbelievable than the one before it.

Eisel Mazard

[ox-head]

[The] presumed adequacy of white people reinventing Buddhism [1] (sui generis) rather than actually learning from and studying (historical or currently-ongoing) Asian traditions of Buddhism is massively counterproductive. Is it any surprise that such white people fear and hate the communities that are actually in a position to challenge their assumptions? Is it any surprise that competing claims to orthodoxy regard one-another with contempt? Zen Buddhists have a low opinion of the Theravāda, etc. --it doesn't take much imagination to see why the same enmity would generally separate Asian from non-Asian "churches".

Eisel Mazard

[1] Or believing that they’ve discovered the original pure essence of Buddhism, etc.

[ox-head]

There could be and should be a wide range of legitimate forms of Buddhist scholars and dissident Buddhist intellectuals, outside of (and in addition to) religious orthodoxy. However, in 2015, we've got none of the three --and the problem isn't exclusively western by any means. The grass isn't greener on the other side --not on ANY of the other sides (from Sri Lanka to Taiwan).

Eisel Mazard

[ox-head]

[Meat-eating] is described as a normal part of ancient Indian society in the Jātakas. It is also true that torture, execution and war are described as normal. Within the core canon, the number of descriptions of torture is somewhat amazing, and many of the descriptions are quite long and gory (I am thinking of torture carried out by kings in this world, but there are also descriptions of torture in hell, etc.). One of the simplest changes in perspective that has to come about from reading long, continuous works in Pali (i.e., not just excerpts) is the realization that what is described as “normal” is not endorsed by the Buddha as “good”. The Buddha does not give us any sense that in the future soliders will cease to be soldiers, nor that kings will cease to be kings, nor that governments will cease to murder and torture people; quite the opposite, all of these things are described (repeatedly) as inevitable and constant features of life on earth. Equally, the core canon is lacking in any sense of a “vegetarian society” of the future. It may be important to mention in this respect that while the whole canon is full of invective against the caste system there is absolutely no suggestion that India will ever have a future without caste (this, too, is inevitable and constant, even if “bad” in so many ways). Although a few of the suttas do describe a golden age of the past in which there were no crimes for kings to punish with torture and execution (and others describe the brahmins of the past as vegetarians, who refused to commit animal sacrifice, etc.) the whole tendency of the literature is to present society as something that is bad, but that extraordinary people can exempt themselves from (by becoming Buddhist monks). The notion that society can improve itself is alien to the purpose and perspective of the literature; perhaps the experience of wandering the countryside and preaching morality (without ever seeing public morals changed) formed and informed this perspective, and perhaps it is just a corollary of nirvana itself, as a practice that takes the individual away from society, leaving one transformed and the other unchanged.

Eisel Mazard, Vegetarianism and Theravada Orthodoxy

This is an attitude we’d probably define as cynical and defeatist today, especially in comparison to the secular leftish model of social ethics that is typically fused with modern Western Buddhism. This is “authentic” Buddhism; you have to accept this to understand Buddhism in the past, and to critically engage in thinking about how (and IF) orthodox Buddhist doctrine can be helpful in the present; and finally, how it might be authentically adapted for pragmatic social-ethical ends, if such a thing is possible or if it should be done at all. These are serious, complex questions; but, they’re for serious Buddhists to think about and answer.

[ox-head]

I recall Alexandra David-Neel reporting that the Buddhists she met in India were quite willing to eat meat so long as the butcher was a member of a rival religion or a despised caste. We have a tradition of many centuries of Buddhists offering excuses along the lines of, “It’s okay to eat this meat, because the butcher is Muslim (and the ‘bad karma’ accrues to him, not me)”. We have to decide in our own century if we’re interested in just making more excuses, or if we’re interested in the actual teaching of the Buddha (as preserved, however imperfectly, in the Pali canon). It’s a decision that people are going to make individually; facts are powerless before opinion, as in the case of “the Buddha was Bald” before. I’m not motivated to muster and present the facts, because I’m aware that nobody wants to hear them.

Eisel Mazard, Vegetarianism and Theravada Orthodoxy

Mazard was perhaps a little too pessimistic at the time. Some people seem to be interested after all (e.g. probably you, if you’re still following this blog after the deluge of Mazard quotes).

[ox-head]

[An anti-textualist/anti-intellectualist] attitude is not uncommon, but it is normally a bit better concealed: it is the fragile and embittered result of a lifetime spent in worshipping and even preaching a religion that the adherents themselves don’t understand. Inevitably, such people attack me (even if I have said nothing controversial to them) because anything that I might say (and anything that I do know) will be a threat to their beliefs, and to their sense of their own religious authority. The world is full of meditation teachers who claim “30 years’ experience” but they have no more ability to know what the Buddha taught about meditation now than they did 30 years ago.

Eisel Mazard, Vegetarianism and Theravada Orthodoxy