shake, rattle & roll?
In a recent post on his blog, Brad wrote: "This is why I think Buddhism in America desperately needs to be shaken up and radically changed." Huh? I'm not at all sure that's a desperate need at all. Maybe I'm selfish or myopic, but having just recently found a group of Zen practitioners to sit with, it appears to me that the state of Zen Buddhism is fine and dandy.
Brad's assertion, which sorta just hangs there, is one of those enigmatic statements that begs to be explained, and I hope he will, if not on his blog, then in his next book. Buddhism itself has been around long enough that for one person to assert that it needs to be "shaken up and radically changed" seems a bit harsh. I'd love to hear the reasons.
I might agree that there are systems of thought that need to be shaken up, but I'd hope that that shake-up would lead to a serious consideration of Zen Buddhism, as it is, rather than a shake-up of Zen itself.
posted by Anonymous @ Friday, May 19, 2006
3 comments
3 Comments:
I'm with Brad on this one. I hate it when I see different versions of Buddhism offering easy paths to "enlightenment" and "bliss".
I mean, I really don't care if people want to live in their own little fantasy worlds... feeling all warm and fuzzy about their new, special state of mind. I just hate it when they call that experience "Buddhism", because it doesn't have anything to do with Buddhism.
And I hate it when other people think of this kind of thing when they think of Buddhism. In my mind, almost everyone has a "wrong" idea of what Buddhism is all about. To many of people, Buddhism is the Dalai Lama, and reincarnation, and people sitting cross-legged while humming and praying to a little Buddha statue, and trying to reach some fantastic state of bliss (and get away from this horrible, ordinary world). Many see Buddha as a magical Jesus figure, a god, capable of magic tricks, and so on.
So much of Western "Buddhism" is soft, gentle, quiet, feminine... the kind that some people call "butterfly zen". And hey, I'm all for those things, but they represent only one side of things... not reality. Reality is also ugly, smelly, noisy, and complex.
I think there is a big danger when we start getting dualistic, and trying to see only "good" things... ignoring (or running away from) anything that doesn't fit their perfect enlightened world. Doing this only sets people up for dissapointment and confusion.
To me, Buddhism is about experiencing reality for what it is, warts and all. It is about letting go of our inner chatter, and being here, now. It is about getting beyond dualistic thinking. It is about becoming more present in our present moment... more aware, more alive.
I think that most Buddhist groups are trying to do the right thing. But they aren't willing to go the full path, because it isn't easy or fun. And, many do not go the full path bacause they don't know any better.
Brad's assertion, which sorta just hangs there, is one of those enigmatic statements that begs to be explained, and I hope he will, if not on his blog, then in his next book.
I thought he explained it pretty well in that very post:
The Mormon focus on ethics and living a productive life strikes me as way better than the emphasis much of American Buddhism places on achieving "Enlightenment experiences" and finding bliss.
I am not an American, so I don't know how common that sort of thinking actually is down there, or whether it's widespread enough to require radical shake-ups and whatnot. Here in Canada, the Buddhists I've run into seem more interested in making the world a better place than in achieving states of bliss.
So, people: What are your experiences with this in your countries? Are there a lot of people who are in Buddhism to find "Enlightenment experiences"? Is that even a bad thing?
Anyone here notice that Brad's webpage and blog have changed recently? I'm not seeing the links to the old essays or most of his recent blog posts. I wonder what's up?
Post a Comment
<< Home