Z-Buddhism is, hopefully, the last Buddhism you will ever need. Z-Buddhism interprets Buddhism in conjunction with what know from the sciences as well as the social sciences.
Z-Buddhism does not build up from X-Buddhism or Y-Buddhism. It instead builds up theory as it ought to be done - correctly and right the first time. While X-Buddhism seems to be building up some theory to deal with Buddhism intelligently, it really seems to be the sort of "theory building" you see in European continental philosophy. This type of theory building involves using words that few people can understand and it must be said that it is not clear that anything useful is being contributed by a theory merely by the use of impressive sounding words - hermeneutics, substratal matrix, visible informant, et cetera. Gayatri Spivak, Slavoj Zizek, and Homi Bhabha are just three intellectuals guilty of using terms that serve no real purpose other than to obfuscate. The excessive use of these words is often indicative of a poverty of theory itself. This does not mean that X-Buddhism itself is lacking in any way. It is merely a warning to be careful about certain types of theories. Indeed, the obfuscatory words of deconstructionists such the people behind X-Buddhism (or more famously Zizek, Spivak and Bhabha) may even play a role. By not revealing its hand, but yet speaking against the "Machine", it is able to critique whatever "Machine" it is that it chooses to pit itself against.
Again, the excessive use of complex-sound words is often indicative of a poverty of ideas in a theory. This is because of the following reason: good social scientific theories are based on a set of hypotheses. This set of hypotheses can be stated in relatively simple terms. So theories, which are built up from good hypotheses, can also be stated in relatively simple terms. An example of such a theory is the theory of disruptive innovation. Although the theory itself has fallen into question, the techniques of good theory building were used to build the theory - although extra care should have been taken in making sure that the theory was novel as well as accurate. A better theory is the theory of evolution. What is noteworthy about this theory is that it can be explained in relatively few and simple terms (viz., life arises due to evolutionary forces.)
Let us move on to the motivations of theory building. The motivation of theory building is to shed light on the world. The conflict of Religion with Science is well known. Christianity has come under attack because it conflicts with science. The theory of creationism has been throughly debunked and indeed this "theory" has been entirely superseded by the theory of evolution. What is an emerging truth is that Buddhism also has a conflict - not with the Sciences, but with the Social Sciences. Z-Buddhism tells the story of what this conflict is and how it is being resolved (if at all that is possible). Some of the conflict between Religion and Science are essentially unresolvable. It is simply the case that the theory of creationism is wrong. Similarly, it is possible that some of the issues with Buddhism from the perspective of the Social Sciences may never be resolved.
Like the DNA which consists of three intertwining strands, the world of religious studies consists of three strands - at least, it ought to. The first strand (let us color it red) is the strand of Christopher Hitchens and others who are against Religion inevery form. The second strand (let us color it green) is the strand of Religion itself. Different religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are part of this strand. The third strand (let us color it blue) is that of the scientist and the social scientist. Thus far, only two strands have been proposed. This work should be seen as the third strand that is oftentimes ignored.
The main reason I am doing this is anthropological and scientific: one, there are many benefits to various forms of Buddhist meditation and not all the benefits have yet been studied; two, there will probably always be Buddhists in the world, so we might as well study them as anthropologists/sociologists, at least while they are around. Atheists often make excellent points about religions (and I am by no means telling you whether I am an atheist or not) but it is worth keeping in mind that most of this stuff is quite well known. Indeed, virtually everything that Christopher Hitchens says in his book "God is NOT Great" is well known, well understood (even obvious) stuff. My aim is to show that it is possible to coexist with religionists but that does not mean it is easy. Religionists of all religions can be mean-spirited, envious, egotistical, bullying, name calling, self-righteous and a variety of other things. Indeed, I have been working on a paper to see how we can reduce power abuse within organizations (please search SSRN for the paper entitled "Anand-deconstruction").
In Z-Buddhism, we will look at some of these issues, and resolve the ones that may be resolvable. So that's Z-Buddhism. It is the last Buddhism you will ever need.
No comments:
Post a Comment