Metaphysics and Critical Buddhism
QUESTION: I have finally finished "The New (old) Buddhism",...having been sidetracked by some others in between. Wonderful stuff - creating sparks which should take hold anywhere there is some good flammable stuff to be found. It has already created some revolutionary fires in me !!! You probably won't be surprised that i concur strongly with the critical buddhists' standpoint. This is pretty much what i have been trying to say all along, only not very eloquently. If i understand correctly, they seem to be pretty much against the metaphysical concepts which have crept into Buddhism over the years such as the idea of an "eternal soul". The concept of "Buddha Nature" does not seem to be so explicitly theistic. It all depends on interpretation as you said. So it can be either a useful concept or not, depending on how one defines and understands it. The critical Buddhists seem to be trying to assert that Buddhism is a nontheistic philosophy rather than a religion. Have i understood this correctly? You wrote "A superficial reading of Critical Buddhism can lead the unsuspecting Westerner to think that this is a resurgence of logical positivism, of rationality and doubt over faith. This interpretation is, however, completely wrong." I admit that i haven't read the writings of the Critical Buddhists, so i am sure you know better than me. However it seems a little unfair to lump rationality into the same basket as logical positivism and doubt. Also it does seem to me that they are arguing for exactly that... a resurgence of (at least) rationality over faith in the metaphysical. Again, it all depends on definitions.... language can be such slippery stuff. (Politicians seem to be acutely aware of this and deliberately slime it to further their goals). You suggest that this would be a misinterpretation because "the heroes of the Critical Buddhists are people of faith..." p.155. But then on the same page you go on to say that, "In the West, faith tends to mean faith in the transcendent ultimate. In Buddhism, however, faith is really the faith to live without that comfort." So in other words, the Buddhist definition of faith is virtually opposite to the Western understanding. A guaranteed way of creating confusion. So doesn't this mean then that Buddhist faith is essentially atheistic? It is faith in the Buddha, the dharma, the sangha, and the potential of these three jewels to bring about positive change in the world. Using metaphysical or mythological figures such as Amida or Quan Shi Yin for inspiration and motivation or perhaps for reassurance, seems reasonable. But do problems not arise if practitioners come to rely or depend on these mythological figures or to believe that they actually exist? Wouldn't this be a state of ignorance rather than seeing things as they really are? Couldn't it create confusion, foster dependence, and take away one's motivation, initiative and sense of responsibility? And is it really necessary to have such figures. It seems to me that the Buddha and his teachings are extremely inspiring in themselves. Do we need anything else? Warm regards, - J
DHARMAVIDYA: Dear J. Well, there are many points in your question and from a Western viewpoint they may all seem to be pointing in the same direction, but from a Buddhist perspective they may seem to be pointing in many different directions. “The Buddha’s teachings are extremely inspiring in themselves”. OK. So here are some of Buddha’s teachings from the Pali texts, common to every school of Buddhism:
- Bhikkhus, the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear, open, evident, and free from patchwork. In the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus, which is clear, open, evident, and free from patchwork, those who have sufficient faith in me, sufficient love for me, are all headed for heaven. MN22
- Vaccha, there are not only one hundred or two hundred or three or four or five hundred, but far more householders who, without abandoning the fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body, have gone to heaven. MN71.
- Bhikkhus, when anyone’s faith has been planted, rooted and established in the Tathagata through these reasons, terms and phrases, his faith is said to be supported by reasons, rooted in vision, firm; it is invincible. MN47
- Bhikkhus, suppose there were two houses with doors and a man with good sight standing there between them saw people going in and coming out and passing to and fro. So too, with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, I see beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate. I understand how beings pass on according to their actions thus, “These worthy beings... on the dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world. Or, ... have reappeared among human beings. But, these... have reappeared in the world of ghosts. Or, ... the animal world. Or, ... on the dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. MN130
And so on. There are lots of passages that show what Shakyamuni Buddha believed. As you say, “Do we need anything else?” But I suspect that this is not quite what you intended. The Buddha’s beliefs seem to have been rather common ones; namely, good people go to a good rebirth, even heaven, while bad ones go to less enviable places, and what makes the difference between people acting well or acting badly is faith, especially faith in the Tathagata. What is the Tathagata? The Tathagata is a being in whom “no defiled states are found” MN47. “A Tathagata appears in the world, accomplished, fully enlightened, perfect in true knowledge and conduct, sublime, knower of worlds, incomparable leader of persons to be tamed, teacher of gods and humans, enlightened, blessed. He declares this world with its gods, Maras and Brahmas.... He teaches the Dhamma. MN27. At the very least, a Tathagata is an archetype. We call the Tathagata Amida. Shakyamuni lived a life animated by identification with the Tathagata. Most Buddhists live lives identified with being those who have faith in the Tathagata. A Tathagata in itself, however, is not a human being but something that goes beyond the ordinary human state and inspires faith, love and devotion. That is a religion.
On the other hand, Amida is not really the ultimate. The ultimate is beyond human access. Amida is the most sublime thing we can encounter and contemplate. Even Amida is seen through human eyes. Each religion, therefore, clothes the sublime vision in its own colours. It is bound to do so because religions are human creations. We might conceptualise something that is more perfect than humans can achieve but, by definition, we cannot achieve it because we are human. One extreme is to say that because humans cannot be perfect we should abandon all image of the sublime. The other extreme is to say that because we can conceive that there is an ultimate truth, then our most sublime visions must equate to it. Really religion has to be a middle way. It has to provide imagery that orients us toward the sublime – gives us faith in the Tathagata – without asserting that the image offered by this or that sect is itself the ultimate truth. All religious imagery is a signpost.
It is clear, however, that the Buddha advocated faith in the Tathagata – either directly or through the intermediary agency of a teacher. As for the relation between faith and doubt and faith and rationality, the Buddha saw them as complimentary to one another. The opposition that has become so much a part of Western popular thinking is not something he shared. When he preaches against doubt, he is, I think, really talking about cynicism. Doubt in the cleaner, more technical or philosophical sense is part of “investigation” – something the Buddha sees as a support for faith.
As for metaphysics, we cannot do without it. “Whereas physics is the attempt to discover the laws that govern fundamental concrete objects, metaphysics is the attempt to discover the laws that systematize the fundamental abstract objects presupposed by physical science, such as natural numbers, real numbers, functions, sets and properties, physically possible objects and events, to name just a few. The goal of metaphysics, therefore, is to develop a formal ontology, i.e., a formally precise systematization of these abstract objects. Such a theory will be compatible with the world view of natural science if the abstract objects postulated by the theory are conceived as patterns of the natural world.” (Metaphysics Research).
What I think you are asserting is not an absence of metaphysics but rather a metaphysics that asserts that the “abstract objects” be confined to ones approved by scientists. This, however, has many pitfalls. Science has changed many times and will no doubt continue to do so. The metaphysics of Buddhism really allows for a vast multiplicity of phenomena and abstract objects going well beyond the confines of science as modern (or even post-modern) people conceive it. Buddhist metaphysics is generally inclusive where contemporary popular metaphysics is exclusive. The contemporary modern person has been taught to exclude whatever they think has not been “proved”. In fact, however, nothing metaphysical is ever proved, and that includes all the theories of science. The current theories of science are simply what has been proposed but not yet disproved according the game rules of science – but even those rules are unprovable metaphysical postulates. Their value lies in their usefulness to science, not in their demonstration of truth. In the definition at the beginning of this paragraph, the term “fundamental concrete object” is metaphysical. Philosophy, psychology and popular thinking all rest upon fundamental non-concrete objects. Who, for instance, has ever seen a consciousness, an unconscious, an ego, an inner child, a popular opinion, etc? They are all fundamental non-concrete objects – i.e. metaphysical.
So since we have to have some metaphysic, what metaphysic does Buddhism suggest. Buddha was not atheist. Nowhere does he deny the existence of gods. He does, however, demote the gods. In DN11, for instance, he tells the story of a disciple visiting all the gods to get the answer to a question and having in the end to come back to the Buddha to get the right answer. Buddha’s universe had heaven and hell, ghosts and humans, devas and brahmas, and all manner of other things. Throughout it all, however, one needs prasada and bodhi – faith and vision. This is what makes Buddha’s teaching timeless and universal. Even if the metaphysics changes, Buddha would go on saying the same thing – that faith and vision, love and compassion, are what matter.
What the Critical Buddhists are objecting to is not Buddhist metaphysics, but Hindu and Japanese metaphysics that have been imported into Buddhism. Japanese metaphysics gives pride of place to nature. However, many natural things are abominable. There is no particular reason to think that cannibalism is unnatural. Certainly all manner of indulgence can be considered natural. Japanese Buddhism has thus tended to become non-ethical. Hindu metaphysics suggest an underlying sub-strata of “dhatu” to existence. This “ground of being” idea is alien to Buddhism. Buddhism prefers the idea of conditional arising, which allows things to happen without the need to postulate a constant “something” that persists through all the changes. The reason that Critical Buddhists do not like the dhatu idea is, apart from the fact that they think it is bad Buddhism, that it tends to introduce a conservative element into life. It suggests that things are as they are because they should be so. The Buddhist metaphysic does not place a particular value on “things as they are”. The combination of Japanese and Hindu metaphysics, the Critical Buddhists suggest, leads to an attitude that (a) is weak on ethics and (b) favours the status quo even when it is oppressive.
Buddhist metaphysics is different. Possibilities are virtually unlimited. Things can be very good or extremely bad. There is no reason to think that just because something is so that that makes it good. At the same time, the universe is essentially ethical in its basic nature. Karma applies. Karma without dhatu, however, does not lead to fatalism. It leads to the sense that one should act ethically whether the times are with you or against you – that you should not base your efforts upon whether they are likely to succeed in the short run or not. All good will have effect. Faith in Buddhism, therefore, includes faith that karma will take care of it. Our responsibility is not to make sure justice happens – that’s karma’s job – our responsibility is to be consistently compassionate. This requires faith. Faith requires an object. The object offered in Buddhism is the Tathagata.
Many contemporary Buddhists in the West would like to reconstruct Buddhism with a modern Western metaphysic. I can see the attraction of this, and have sometimes found myself tempted by the project. We should, however, pause and consider whether the contemporary metaphysic is (a) really conducive to the kind of life Buddha advocated and (b) likely to last more than a generation or two. On both counts there are serious reasons to be doubtful. Modernism is under attack from all quarters philosophically precisely because it does lead to narcissistic concern, materialism, consumerism, imperialism and all sorts of other evils.
DHARMAVIDYA: Dear J. Well, there are many points in your question and from a Western viewpoint they may all seem to be pointing in the same direction, but from a Buddhist perspective they may seem to be pointing in many different directions. “The Buddha’s teachings are extremely inspiring in themselves”. OK. So here are some of Buddha’s teachings from the Pali texts, common to every school of Buddhism:
- Bhikkhus, the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear, open, evident, and free from patchwork. In the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus, which is clear, open, evident, and free from patchwork, those who have sufficient faith in me, sufficient love for me, are all headed for heaven. MN22
- Vaccha, there are not only one hundred or two hundred or three or four or five hundred, but far more householders who, without abandoning the fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body, have gone to heaven. MN71.
- Bhikkhus, when anyone’s faith has been planted, rooted and established in the Tathagata through these reasons, terms and phrases, his faith is said to be supported by reasons, rooted in vision, firm; it is invincible. MN47
- Bhikkhus, suppose there were two houses with doors and a man with good sight standing there between them saw people going in and coming out and passing to and fro. So too, with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, I see beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate. I understand how beings pass on according to their actions thus, “These worthy beings... on the dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world. Or, ... have reappeared among human beings. But, these... have reappeared in the world of ghosts. Or, ... the animal world. Or, ... on the dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. MN130
And so on. There are lots of passages that show what Shakyamuni Buddha believed. As you say, “Do we need anything else?” But I suspect that this is not quite what you intended. The Buddha’s beliefs seem to have been rather common ones; namely, good people go to a good rebirth, even heaven, while bad ones go to less enviable places, and what makes the difference between people acting well or acting badly is faith, especially faith in the Tathagata. What is the Tathagata? The Tathagata is a being in whom “no defiled states are found” MN47. “A Tathagata appears in the world, accomplished, fully enlightened, perfect in true knowledge and conduct, sublime, knower of worlds, incomparable leader of persons to be tamed, teacher of gods and humans, enlightened, blessed. He declares this world with its gods, Maras and Brahmas.... He teaches the Dhamma. MN27. At the very least, a Tathagata is an archetype. We call the Tathagata Amida. Shakyamuni lived a life animated by identification with the Tathagata. Most Buddhists live lives identified with being those who have faith in the Tathagata. A Tathagata in itself, however, is not a human being but something that goes beyond the ordinary human state and inspires faith, love and devotion. That is a religion.
On the other hand, Amida is not really the ultimate. The ultimate is beyond human access. Amida is the most sublime thing we can encounter and contemplate. Even Amida is seen through human eyes. Each religion, therefore, clothes the sublime vision in its own colours. It is bound to do so because religions are human creations. We might conceptualise something that is more perfect than humans can achieve but, by definition, we cannot achieve it because we are human. One extreme is to say that because humans cannot be perfect we should abandon all image of the sublime. The other extreme is to say that because we can conceive that there is an ultimate truth, then our most sublime visions must equate to it. Really religion has to be a middle way. It has to provide imagery that orients us toward the sublime – gives us faith in the Tathagata – without asserting that the image offered by this or that sect is itself the ultimate truth. All religious imagery is a signpost.
It is clear, however, that the Buddha advocated faith in the Tathagata – either directly or through the intermediary agency of a teacher. As for the relation between faith and doubt and faith and rationality, the Buddha saw them as complimentary to one another. The opposition that has become so much a part of Western popular thinking is not something he shared. When he preaches against doubt, he is, I think, really talking about cynicism. Doubt in the cleaner, more technical or philosophical sense is part of “investigation” – something the Buddha sees as a support for faith.
As for metaphysics, we cannot do without it. “Whereas physics is the attempt to discover the laws that govern fundamental concrete objects, metaphysics is the attempt to discover the laws that systematize the fundamental abstract objects presupposed by physical science, such as natural numbers, real numbers, functions, sets and properties, physically possible objects and events, to name just a few. The goal of metaphysics, therefore, is to develop a formal ontology, i.e., a formally precise systematization of these abstract objects. Such a theory will be compatible with the world view of natural science if the abstract objects postulated by the theory are conceived as patterns of the natural world.” (Metaphysics Research).
What I think you are asserting is not an absence of metaphysics but rather a metaphysics that asserts that the “abstract objects” be confined to ones approved by scientists. This, however, has many pitfalls. Science has changed many times and will no doubt continue to do so. The metaphysics of Buddhism really allows for a vast multiplicity of phenomena and abstract objects going well beyond the confines of science as modern (or even post-modern) people conceive it. Buddhist metaphysics is generally inclusive where contemporary popular metaphysics is exclusive. The contemporary modern person has been taught to exclude whatever they think has not been “proved”. In fact, however, nothing metaphysical is ever proved, and that includes all the theories of science. The current theories of science are simply what has been proposed but not yet disproved according the game rules of science – but even those rules are unprovable metaphysical postulates. Their value lies in their usefulness to science, not in their demonstration of truth. In the definition at the beginning of this paragraph, the term “fundamental concrete object” is metaphysical. Philosophy, psychology and popular thinking all rest upon fundamental non-concrete objects. Who, for instance, has ever seen a consciousness, an unconscious, an ego, an inner child, a popular opinion, etc? They are all fundamental non-concrete objects – i.e. metaphysical.
So since we have to have some metaphysic, what metaphysic does Buddhism suggest. Buddha was not atheist. Nowhere does he deny the existence of gods. He does, however, demote the gods. In DN11, for instance, he tells the story of a disciple visiting all the gods to get the answer to a question and having in the end to come back to the Buddha to get the right answer. Buddha’s universe had heaven and hell, ghosts and humans, devas and brahmas, and all manner of other things. Throughout it all, however, one needs prasada and bodhi – faith and vision. This is what makes Buddha’s teaching timeless and universal. Even if the metaphysics changes, Buddha would go on saying the same thing – that faith and vision, love and compassion, are what matter.
What the Critical Buddhists are objecting to is not Buddhist metaphysics, but Hindu and Japanese metaphysics that have been imported into Buddhism. Japanese metaphysics gives pride of place to nature. However, many natural things are abominable. There is no particular reason to think that cannibalism is unnatural. Certainly all manner of indulgence can be considered natural. Japanese Buddhism has thus tended to become non-ethical. Hindu metaphysics suggest an underlying sub-strata of “dhatu” to existence. This “ground of being” idea is alien to Buddhism. Buddhism prefers the idea of conditional arising, which allows things to happen without the need to postulate a constant “something” that persists through all the changes. The reason that Critical Buddhists do not like the dhatu idea is, apart from the fact that they think it is bad Buddhism, that it tends to introduce a conservative element into life. It suggests that things are as they are because they should be so. The Buddhist metaphysic does not place a particular value on “things as they are”. The combination of Japanese and Hindu metaphysics, the Critical Buddhists suggest, leads to an attitude that (a) is weak on ethics and (b) favours the status quo even when it is oppressive.
Buddhist metaphysics is different. Possibilities are virtually unlimited. Things can be very good or extremely bad. There is no reason to think that just because something is so that that makes it good. At the same time, the universe is essentially ethical in its basic nature. Karma applies. Karma without dhatu, however, does not lead to fatalism. It leads to the sense that one should act ethically whether the times are with you or against you – that you should not base your efforts upon whether they are likely to succeed in the short run or not. All good will have effect. Faith in Buddhism, therefore, includes faith that karma will take care of it. Our responsibility is not to make sure justice happens – that’s karma’s job – our responsibility is to be consistently compassionate. This requires faith. Faith requires an object. The object offered in Buddhism is the Tathagata.
Many contemporary Buddhists in the West would like to reconstruct Buddhism with a modern Western metaphysic. I can see the attraction of this, and have sometimes found myself tempted by the project. We should, however, pause and consider whether the contemporary metaphysic is (a) really conducive to the kind of life Buddha advocated and (b) likely to last more than a generation or two. On both counts there are serious reasons to be doubtful. Modernism is under attack from all quarters philosophically precisely because it does lead to narcissistic concern, materialism, consumerism, imperialism and all sorts of other evils.
posted by Dharmavidya at 6:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home