Buddhism and the social sciences: Hindu-Buddhist Studies Post 10 : The Karma Cola reference

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Hindu-Buddhist Studies Post 10 : The Karma Cola reference

#SociologyOfBuddhism

The Karma Cola reference is to the book by Gita Mehta.

Beginning in the late '60s, hundreds of thousands of Westerners descended upon India, disciples of a cultural revolution that proclaimed that the magic and mystery missing from their lives was to be found in the East. An Indian writer who has also lived in England and the United States, Gita Mehta was ideally placed to observe the spectacle of European and American "pilgrims" interacting with their hosts. When she finally recorded her razor sharp observations in Karma Cola, the book became an instant classic for describing, in merciless detail, what happens when the traditions of an ancient and longlived society are turned into commodities and sold to those who don't understand them.

In the dazzling prose that has become her trademark, Mehta skewers the entire Spectrum of seekers: The Beatles, homeless students, Hollywood rich kids in detox, British guilt-trippers, and more. In doing so, she also reveals the devastating byproducts that the Westerners brought to the villages of rural lndia -- high anxiety and drug addiction among them.

Brilliantly irreverent, Karma Cola displays Gita Mehta's gift for weaving old and new, common and bizarre, history and current events into a seamless and colorful narrative that is at once witty, shocking, and poignant.

Also, see the following definition below of non-Buddhism.

The work of François Laruelle has given impetus to my specific formulation of “non-buddhism.” Think of my notion of “non-buddhism” (and of Laruelle’s “non-philosophy”) as somewhat akin to non-Euclidean geometry. The difference between Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry lies, of course, in the behavior of a line. Euclid’s fifth postulate assumes parallelism. In upholding this postulate, along with the other four, Euclideans radically limit the field of possible forms. Rejecting this postulate (though preserving the other four), non-Euclidean geometry envisions, so to speak, radical new possibilities; namely, it permits elliptical and hyperbolic curvature.

This image is instructive. “Non-buddhism,” as I conceive it, makes no decision about (1) what postulates properly constitute “Buddhism,” or (2) the value, truth, or relevance of any of the claims made in the name of “Buddhism.” Such non-decision enables a speculative, and perhaps even applied, curving toward or away from the ostensible teachings of Buddhism, as the case may be.

I don't agree with this methodology of understanding the world at all. Whereas Gita Mehta's work is, properly understood, both a work of literature and a piece of ethnographic research, non-Buddhism does not fit the latter of definition at all. For this reason, I will highlight specific portions of the critique(s) from the blog "Speculative non-Buddhism" that are relevant to someone approaching this matter as a social scientist. #SociologyOfBuddhism

No comments:

Post a Comment

About z-Buddhism

About z-Buddhism: http://buddhismandthesocialsciences.blogspot.com/2014/08/about-z-buddhism.html

-+-

There are many Buddhisms. There is, of course, mainstream Buddhism. Then, there is X-Buddhism, a description of which is available at the following website: http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/. And then, there is Y-Buddhism. Somebody suggested Y-Buddhism as an alternate type of Buddhism (I have not looked into the details of Y-Buddhism, whatever that may be). In this blog, we will describe Z-Buddhism.

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 in every 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.

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.