Reddit reviews The Making of Buddhist Modernism

Every time I read these they become worse. Let's concentrate on some thing I noted this time:

>For example, it is very easy to include God or gods in one's definition of church. In that case, we throw out Buddhism, which is surely a legitimate religion. I assume your version of separation of church and state includes separation of Buddhism and state. Mine sure does. And what about Scientology? Shouldn't we have separation of Scientology and state? I'm guessing you'll sign up for this one as well.

...Buddhism, as the great majority of Buddhists worldwide practice it, is in no way contrary to the existence of gods, quite the other way around. An argument has been made that the whole idea of Buddhism as an atheist religion is mainly the result of a relatively recent process of interplay between (South) Asian nationalists and their state-building projects and British post-Enlightenment intellectuals projecting their own values on an exotic religion. Don't know enough to say, but seems plausible. Likewise, I can't say my theological knowledge of Scientology is vast, but according to Wikipedia, it is a theist religion:

>Scientologists believe in an "Infinity" ("the All-ness of All"). They recite a formal prayer for total freedom at meetings, which include the verses "May the author of the universe enable all men to reach an understanding of their spiritual nature. May awareness and understanding of life expand, so that all may come to know the author of the universe. And may others also reach this understanding which brings Total Freedom ... Freedom from war, and poverty, and want; freedom to be; freedom to do and freedom to have. Freedom to use and understand Man's potential – a potential that is God-given and Godlike." The prayer commences with "May God let it be so."[51] [52]

Scientologists affirm the existence of a deity without defining or describing its nature. L. Ron Hubbard explains in his book Science of Survival, "No culture in the history of the world, save the thoroughly depraved and expiring ones, has failed to affirm the existence of a Supreme Being. It is an empirical observation that men without a strong and lasting faith in a Supreme Being are less capable, less ethical and less valuable." Instead of defining God, members assert that reaching higher states of enlightenment will enable individuals to make their own conclusions about the Supreme Being.[53]

Okay, is that important? Yes, because at this point, Moldbug's argument is basically "Yes, you could defined a church through belief in a God or gods, but what about Buddhist and Scientology, then? Huh? Huh" which, at the very least, rests on very thin ice... and then Moldbug starts taking this badly founded argument and expanding it to an entire worldview.

Another thing that I've thought many times but really only now conceived: how parochial Moldbug's worldview is. The second entry is based on the notion that maybe American revolution was a bad thing - possibly a mindblowing thing to someone who has grown up amidst American patriotic mythos, at most an interesting thought experiment to basically everyone else. There's a whole country to the north of US that was basically founded on the principle that American revolution was a bad thing and which Moldbug does not mention once. United Empire Loyalists Association of Canada continues to exist, contrary to:"Loyalism gives us an extremely foreign perspective of the present world. There are no other Loyalists in 2009. So, when we think as Loyalists, we have no choice but to think for ourselves."

Of course, current Canadians, or Canadian Loyalists, don't probably support the same values that the original Tories who went to Canada did, but that brings me to another point - a rather common habit of taking one movement at point A (hundreds of years ago), then finding a descendant of that movement at point B (now, or may be a few decades ago) and then going "See, it's the same thing!" For instance, here Moldy takes Puritans and the current American mainstream ideology - and, indeed, a case can be made that there's a continuity; certainly American patriotism is in many ways built on what originally were Reformed movements inside and outside the Anglican church and the foundations of current American liberalism are in many ways built on the mainline Protestant variety of this ideology.

However, that would ignore the complete shift in Protestant thinking that modernism brought, how fundamentalism was specifically a reaction that aimed to return Protestantism back to its "fundaments" from mainline's changes, how American patriotism was also affected by Deist and Christian-Deist enlightenment thinking, how current liberalism is also the child of progressivism, populism, Catholic social gospel, reform Judaism etc. and so on. But that's complicated! "Modern Left is Puritans, that's that" is easier and punchier.

Fourth thing is a general comment on neoreaction in general - the biggest reason why the whole movement was a flash-in-the-pan affectation of the few intellectuals was that the original reaction was, essentially, very much a religious movement expressing in the political arena its fear of Enlightenment usurping religion as the main source of societal justification, and much of neoreaction has been at most culturally religious. It just doesn't work! You might as well try to build a movement that's re-establishing the Caliphate - not due to any sort of a belief in Islam, but due to a belief that it just would form the best societal structure to do... well, whatever you want it to do.

What's more, Thoreau was the first to translate (parts of) the Lotus Sutra into English, in a Transcendentalist magazine. This romanticized version of Buddhism not only took root in the West, but also found its way back to Asia: David McMahan's book The Making of Buddhist Modernism will tell you all you need to know about this process.

A lot of the notions you find on this subreddit (secular Buddhism, Buddhism as a philosophy and not a religion, meditation as the core of Buddhism, rebirth as metaphor, etc.) come from this source.

I think you might find it extremely illuminating for your enquiry to read Bhikku Sujato's A Brief History of Mindfulness (you can find downloads of a pdf of the first edition easily - this is a link to Sujato's discussion of his forthcoming second edition of this book - he seems genuinely surprised at how well the 1st edition was received).

Also, something that should almost be required reading before anyone begins discussing "mindfulness" is "Chapter 8: Mindfulness, Literature, and the Affirmation of Ordinary Life" from The Making of Buddhist Modernism.

Buddhism isn't and doesn't claim to be a divine revelation. It developed out of Indian asceticism, which to my understanding has always had an attitude of utter disgust towards the world and sensory pleasures. Now, there is a definite logic to the renunciate position. Dealing with pleasures of the world does naturally generate craving, so isolating yourself from those can be an effective first step towards extinguishing craving. This is a pretty interesting read on the subject, and Buddha's rant to the poor sod who had sex with his wife once out of filial duty was outright funny. Better to stick it into the mouth of a black viper or pit of embers, indeed...

However, there are other approaches. Buddhism changed long ago on entering China, and it changed when it entered West. If I had to quickly summarize McMahan's The Making of Buddhist Modernism, I'd say that what's practiced in the West tends to be a sort of syncretic tradition with elements from traditional Buddhism, Protestant Christianity, modern psychology and Romanticism. Since we aren't talking about Divine Truth here, being different from the early Buddhism doesn't make this intrinsically wrong.

What it might be is less effective at attaining its goals, but personally, I think it just has different strengths. Sure, staying engaged with the world and its beauty will probably keep you experiencing subtle levels of craving and suffering much longer than going ascetic. Yet suffering less is a worthy goal in itself, and the enlightenment found in ascetic setting seems to be vulnerable to collapsing outside of it. If you Awaken while living in the world, in the process you've probably rooted out all kinds of dysfunctional habits and patterns of thinking that monks just don't encounter.

Tl;dr: Suttas are worth reading and thinking about, but not something to take as given truth or to imitate despite deep misgivings.

Interesting... it's a super complex question. Have you read The Making of Buddhist Modernism? Much of modern Buddhism, even in the East, has already intertwined with Christianity and modern science.

Also, depending on the vehicle - Hinayana, Mahayana, or Vajrayana, and specific methods of practice, the moral codes in Buddhism can drastically differ. For example, a Mahayana teacher might tell you to eat a bland vegetarian diet to stay on the Middle Way, while a Vajrayana teacher might tell you to eat bugs and drink blood to dissolve duality of holy vs profane.

My interpretation of Nietzsche is that he's almost a Vajrayana Buddhist, but without the understanding that the self is nebulous/illusory. Zen is weird in that it's technically Mahayana, but has many Vajrayana-like traits too. An excellent read on this topic is Nietzsche and Zen.

<Blind faith is un-Buddhist.

I don't disagree, but I'm an academic. The understanding of Buddhism I have is academic and my arguments are based in issues of history as I understand it.

<I quote scholars and you quote yourself, as if you are an authority. State your name and your credentials then.


This tells me that my arguments alone are insufficient to identify me as an authority to you- really I wouldn't claim to be on this topic. As I said, I study mostly American Buddhism today- no I will not provide my name because I like to preserve some anonymity on the internet. I have a M.A and am doing PhD coursework. The problem that you are having is that you are not taking an academic view of the discussion.

>Your faith is greater than your wisdom

This is an ad-hominem fallacy at its best. I'm not Buddhist at all. I have no faith because I study the topic. I respect the tradition but I certainly don't worship in it. This is a discussion about historical understanding- something that you have garnered from questionable scholars. Here is a brief reading list of real scholars you can take and read to see what actual authorities in the field are saying.

Don Lopez: Elaborations on Emptiness
Don Lopez: The Heart Sutra Explained this is a series of translated commentaries on the Heart Sutra. Though it uses the long version, which is problematic.

J.L Austin: How to Do Things With Words This will tell you a lot about the linguistic empiricists and how words function in religious settings.

If you want to read the theory that I do you might also read
Alfred North Whitehead: Process and Reality
Also:Whithead's Symbolism: It's meaning and Effect
And
Bruce Lincoln's Authority

For Buddhist histories that are not popularist:

Peter N. Gregory: Tsung-Mi and the Sinification of Buddhism

Gimello's Paths to Liberation
or his Studies in Ch'an and Hua-yen

For modern philosophical takes on Buddhism Nancy Frankenberry's Religion and Radical Empiricism though to understand her you need a wider knowledge base than you probably have. Here, let me suggest something for you to read first:

James: The Varieties of Religious Experience
James: The Will to Believe
James: Pragmatism
Rorty: Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature
Rorty: Consequences of Pragmatism

This one is particularly important for you:
Rorty: Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth

You want to know about the origins of Buddhism? How about Vajrayana?
Snellgrove: Indo-Tibetan Buddhism
Pollock (a great book): The Language of the Gods in the World of Men
For a modern take: Wedemeyer: Making Sense of Tantric Buddhism

Davidson: Indian Esoteric Buddhism
Bhattacharyya: An Introduction to Buddhist Esoterism These last few present conflicting views on the nature of Tantrism, particularly the last one that might fit your "fundamentalist" category.

TO understand American Buddhism better:
Merton: Zen and the Birds of Appetite
Eck: A New Religious America
Tweed (this is one of my favorite books ever) The American Encounter with Buddhism 1844-1912
Neusner (ed) World Religions in America
on individuals: Sterling: Zen Pioneer
Hotz: Holding the Lotus to the Rock Sokei-an was a traditionalist and a near mirror of Thich Nhat Hanh, yet his teachings never took off.
Since you Love Thich Nhat Hanh: Fragrant Palm Leaves: Journals 1962-1966 and the companion to that, Merton's journals
Another of Hanh's Vietnam: Lotus in a Sea of Fire This is before he was popular and so is much more interesting than some of his later works.

Also Mcmahan: The Making of Buddhist Modernism

I highly recommend The Making of Buddhist Modernism by David McMahan for anyone interested in better understanding this topic and the complex problems arising as Buddhism finds its place in the 'western' world.

The Buddhist post of his I found memorable was this one, which was largely a summary of the book The Making of Buddhist Modernism by David McMahan. Does the meaningness guy add significant ideas of his own about "the orientation Buddhism has taken in North America" in other posts, or is it basically more publicizing of the thesis of McMahan's book?