It may be untactful to point out that not all cultures are at the same level of moral understanding. Hinduism and Buddhism are certainly at the sort of level of moral understanding that you may expect from pacifist religions. This does not mean that they are free from criticism.
Both religions are far from perfect. Criticism is important in at least that it holds up a mirror to beliefs people may have that are actually mistaken ones. It is useful to keep in mind that no matter what the religious books may ask people to believe, people may read only a part of the text. Furthermore, since religious texts in both Hinduism and Buddhism are illogical and contradictory in nature, it is really quite impossible for anyone to believe it all in the first place. However, what gives to rise to one of the most major differences between Hinduism and Buddhism is Markets.
As Milton Friedman once observed, there are four ways of spending money, and when you spend money on yourself, you try to get the most utility per dollar spent.
The link above is courtesy Atanu Dey, who himself, by the way, has said in the past that he is a Buddhist. I don't know what his religious beliefs are right now, and I don't really care. I believe that he is an American and that is enough for me. I think the sooner we get out of arbitrary labels like Buddhist-Americans, Indian-Americans, et cetera, the better.
Here is more from Atanu Dey's latest post:
Milton Friedman used to elegantly distinguish between four ways of spending money. First, when you spend your own money on yourself, you are very careful to get the most benefit for your buck. After all, it is your money and you know what you want for yourself. Second, when you spend your own money on someone else. Here too you carefully economize to meet your objective but since you don’t know the other person’s needs as well as you do your own needs, your spending may not be as optimal for the other person. Third, you spend other people’s money on yourself. In this case, your incentive to economize is certainly blunted. You are much more concerned with getting the best and less with what it will cost. Finally, when you spend other people’s money on someone else. That is, you transfer resources from one group to another group. In such cases, economizing goes out the window, and what is worse, you promote your own ends rather than the ends of those whose money you are spending or those who are the ostensible beneficiaries of the transfer. The most ubiquitous example of this is what he calls the “distributor of welfare funds” — taxpayers money being spent by government officials for welfare.
The fact that people even in America are willing to pay money for Hindu organizations such as the Art of Living proves behind any reasonable doubt that there is something they are getting out of it.
So as I said, both Hinduism and Buddhism are contradictory, but the term "contradictory" when applied to the two religions means two very different things. In Buddhism, there is an endless series of statements that logically contradict each other. It is not even a consistent system. Hinduism, on the other hand, has the same set of contradictions that any other religion does. However, Hinduism, if we get rid of the religious overlays, represents a real solution some of the ethical challenges facing the world today. What these two religions share at the core is the same thing - a set of practices that can lead to a more ethical life. And despite the fact that these religions have contradictions, it does not mean that these religions cannot be said to have a mission. Such a mission arises out of the interactions of the particular religious organizations.
Let us be really precise in what we mean by that. The Art of Living organization, a Hindu organization, for instance, promotes meditative practices. If people simply went to the basic Art of Living course (Part 1 Course, as they call it) for the meditative practices alone and ignored all that was said by way of talk, they would get something out of it. Again, I have only done one course at the Art of Living, and so am only commenting on that one part. The mission of the Art of Living organization is promoting meditative practices. This is not to confused with primarily political or educational goals. Insofar as the Art of Living is promoting Hinduism free of its religious overlays, it is doing a good job. The best thing to do is to do what James Horgan did with Zen Buddhism. Go check it out and, if it doesn't work, then simply reject it and move on. There is no notion of faith in Hinduism so there is no faith-based baggage to leave behind.
Sam Harris has argued in "The End of Faith" that the nations, India and Pakistan, are at loggerheads with each other over faith. This is just incorrect. While it is true that Hindu is a predominantly Hindu country, it is a secular one. So it is hardly the case that India is pursuing some sort of religious war against the other country Pakistan. This is not an Indian point of view. This is an American point of view. However, to the extent that religion plays a role in society and that influences politics, we must acknowledge the role of religion. Hinduism is a religion that has generally been seen as a pacifist religion. Perhaps, it is true that more could be done to promote peace. Any population of individuals can be asked to do more. But the fact is that whereas certain countries such as the United States have established explicit doctrines (such as the Monroe Doctrine) that have militaristic consequences, such doctrines have not been adopted by India. The evidence simply does not seem to suggest it to be the case given that we have much evidence to the contrary with respect to other states. (Editor's note: here, I am merely doing the needful to point out that nuclear war between India and Pakistan is hardly a certain eventuality, and doing what is necessary to prevent nuclear war between these two nuclear armed states is obviously a good idea. But ascribing equal blame to both sides (1 versus 1 because each country has 1 major religion) seems to ignore the substantial data that exists on this matter countering such a naive hypothesis.) At any rate, insofar as Hinduism has always concerned itself with "other worldliness", there is no reason that any Hindu should pay any attention to what any specific Hindu organizations may say are the material goals (that is, goals pertaining to this world) of Hinduism. There is no reason to believe that Hinduism should have any material goals of any kind.
Hinduism has engaged in a productive dialogue with Buddhism, primarily imho, in that it has called out some of the contradictions inherent in Buddhism. Now, the interesting thing is that this idea of contradiction manifests itself differently in the two religions. Buddhism, in terms of the texts of the religion, is inherently contradictory logically. This is where it fundamentally differs from Hinduism. Hinduism does not have any such contradictions as inherent to the way it operates (What is contradictory in Hinduism are things are contradictory with all religions: one, articles of faith, if one may so term them, that are contradicted by science; and two, religious texts that seem to have no logical coherence). It is to be noted that, in Buddhism, a very large number of beliefs are stated in terms of contradictions. There was a recent discussion (or call it an argument, if you will) on a Buddhist form on whether somebody (let us call him X) was right. The other person retorted that X was wrong in that while he had understood that "form is nothingness", he had not understand that "nothingness is form". (Or it may have been the opposite.) What is the other person to say when faced with an argument like that? Another time it was the question of whether "no words" is better or "using words" is better when faced with a conflicting situation. Note that said conflicting situation involved "ad hominem" attacks. To not respond to such a situation is exceedingly bizarre. It is exactly what will pull you into this organization that seems much like a cult.
Call it what you want, but the first discussion is really not more useful more than counting the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. And the second discussion is more likely to pull you into a cult than anything else. "Drop your assumptions", dearie boy, while we level all sorts of personal attacks against you.
I have made similar statements about Jesus Christ in the past on Christian boards (denying, for instance, whether Jesus Christ could have conceivably have been resurrected - not to irritate anyone but to understand how Christian organizations work) as a scientific experiment (not because of any beliefs of my own regarding this matter, a matter on which I choose not provide any opinion at this point because the Spirit of Christianity is not something to be denied). The most they have done is to simply forgive and move on. That seems to be a very healthy attitude. Just forgive and move on. That is certainly a much healthier attitude than getting into long arguments involving constant insinuations about intent (which I find quite common in Buddhist forums) and leveling "ad hominems" involving anti-Semitism (I am not making this up! I was actually accused of this) at the other person while stating that the matter of anti-Semitic behavior itself "is not subject to debate". Real Buddhist forum (Soto Zen Buddhism forum on Facebook). True story.
The person making said allegation of anti-Semitism is one Alasdair Gordon-Finlayson, a Lecturer in the field of "Suprapersonal Psychology" or some such thing whose presence in the world I came to be aware of about ten days ago. I have a private message from him on this supposed instance of anti-Semitism, which is supposedly past any debate. I have screenshots of what I actually said. So I have plenty of evidence. My response to this allegation of anti-Semitism was that, in America, truth is always a defense in any matter. And the truth of the matter is that no anti-Semitic statement was ever made. If anything, the statement was that Jewish people do extremely well in the matter of winning Nobel Prizes and that this is a matter that should be a cause for pride. This defense based on truth is an absolute in America. Such is not the case in other countries. Let people in other countries figure out the solution to their own problems. That is all I have to say about all this anti-Semitism nonsense. And making these types of allegations about other people and then refusing to apologize is nothing short of revolting.
In fact, when one is faced with the mass of contradictions in Buddhism, one must acknowledge that this creates a set of problems that are unique to the religion. Let us put on our organizational behaviorist hats. If one is asked to think about how "form is nothingness" and how "nothingness is form" as part of a religious practice, and one is deemed to pass the test at some point when one has understood this, how is it even theoretically possible to know if someone has reached the next level? Buddhism bases itself on practices such as this.
Furthermore, Buddhism bases it on what are called "personal experiences". But personal experiences, such as memories of previous births, an idea very basic to Buddhism, cannot be relied on if we are at all in the business of science. It is hard to know who is qualified and who is qualified to teach this religion that asks you to think about previous births. The choice of terms we use is important. It is one thing to think about "conflicting requirements", "conflicting choices", and other such things, but it is another thing to think about "contradictions" all the time. So while Buddhism is a pacifist religion, the critique of the religion that it is not - even theoretically - possible to justify any sort of knowledge about Buddhism then arises. The trouble for Buddhism is that the many of its most important thinkers - the Buddha, Nagarjuna, et cetera - seemed to unaware of even basic ideas of science and logic. This means that the Precepts of Buddhism that Buddhist monks are supposed to follow are as subject to criticism as anything else.
Sure, it is true that it is a system that gives people the choice whether to join it or not and whether or or not to become a monk, but within the organization, it is even theoretically impossible to achieve certain types of equality - for instance, it is not at all clear how such organizations would achieve racial equality. You need to, for instance, have a certain sort of experience of "oneness with the universe" to progress to certain stages. Now, as a scientist, we must be very careful in saying that while we cannot rule out the possibility that someone has experienced this, this idea itself seems non-conformant with known laws of physics. (We can read the religious texts of Buddhism to see what they meant by "oneness with the universe" during pre-modern times. Unless you suppose some sort of Divine revelation, it is hard to see how the Buddha could have known anything about quantum physics that is sometimes used to defend Buddhism.) Note that racial equality can only be achieved when an organization has a structure that approaches a Weberian rational-legal system (see Max Weber, "Economy and Society", 1922). If the method of selection is totally arbitrary, then such equality may never be achieved. In fact, it is unlikely that there is any sort of meritocracy there in the first place. So it is almost absurd to expect that any sort of equality should ever arise.
The trouble with Buddhism is one of its Precepts protects the religion against criticism. This means that - while we are in the sociological context of being with Buddhists in the context of a monastery, a Zen center or an Internet forum - you cannot easily simply state the Truth. Truth, as we know, is a very powerful weapon against accusations of trolling, lying, et cetera. When Truth goes out the window, what is left? It is not for nothing that Truth as an absolute defense against allegations has been part of the constitution of the United States. Another thing: it is hard to know what Buddhists will say if you simply state the plain fact that you don't believe that "form is nothingness" and "nothingness is form". There is an utter lack of consistency in responses. Sure, it is up to the individual to decide. But it is unlikely that the average Buddhist individual would have arrived at the answer with any sort of scientific understanding. This, then, is a fundamental problem in engaging with Buddhists. You can never tell what they will think up of as a counter-argument. This is, then, does not have the logical consistency of mathematics. And so while engaging with them in human interactions is possible (there are no real organizational challenges as an employee of a corporation, for instance, to work with Buddhists just as there are no challenges in working with Hindus or Christians), engaging with them in constructive dialogue is almost impossible - unless they deem you fit. Fit, that is, to be able to engage with them according to some arbitrary rules that they decide unilaterally are reasonable and display attributes of so-called "Right Speech". The Buddhists are surely using some magic formula hitherto unknown to the rest of humankind to divine what is and what is not "Right Speech".
By way of contrast, Hinduism is not based on such contradictions. (However, the fact that while Socratic Hinduism squares Hinduism's unscientific beliefs and resolves them, this sort of Socratic system of inquiry is far from the predominant mode of thinking by Hindus.) This means that even arguing that a certain idea of Buddhism, which may be central to the belief system of one individual, has been throughly rejected is often viewed with great suspicion by Buddhists. They may even react with verbal hostility. So, while I consider them to have a moral system that is at the same level of understanding as Hindus, Jains and Catholics, it is hard for anyone to discuss things with them even if they are not claiming allegiance to either Hinduism or Buddhism, two allied religions. The problem ultimately are the supposed contradictions (according to Buddhists) that we must "ponder upon" that, in reality, don't even really exist.
So, the thesis that Hinduism is Buddhism plus Rationality plus Markets. Sam Harris argues the Buddhism could offer an elegant answer to the ethical problems of our age.
The wisdom of the Buddha is currently trapped within the religion of Buddhism. Even in the West, where scientists and Buddhist contemplatives now collaborate in studying the effects of meditation on the brain, Buddhism remains an utterly parochial concern. While it may be true enough to say (as many Buddhist practitioners allege) that “Buddhism is not a religion,” most Buddhists worldwide practice it as such, in many of the naive, petitionary, and superstitious ways in which all religions are practiced. Needless to say, all non-Buddhists believe Buddhism to be a religion—and, what is more, they are quite certain that it is the wrong religion.
To talk about “Buddhism,” therefore, inevitably imparts a false sense of the Buddha’s teaching to others. So insofar as we maintain a discourse as “Buddhists,” we ensure that the wisdom of the Buddha will do little to inform the development of civilization in the twenty-first century.
Worse still, the continued identification of Buddhists with Buddhism lends tacit support to the religious differences in our world. At this point in history, this is both morally and intellectually indefensible—especially among affluent, well-educated Westerners who bear the greatest responsibility for the spread of ideas. It does not seem much of an exaggeration to say that if you are reading this article, you are in a better position to influence the course of history than almost any person in history. Given the degree to which religion still inspires human conflict, and impedes genuine inquiry, I believe that merely being a self-described “Buddhist” is to be complicit in the world’s violence and ignorance to an unacceptable degree.
It is true that many exponents of Buddhism, most notably the Dalai Lama, have been remarkably willing to enrich (and even constrain) their view of the world through dialogue with modern science. But the fact that the Dalai Lama regularly meets with Western scientists to discuss the nature of the mind does not mean that Buddhism, or Tibetan Buddhism, or even the Dalai Lama’s own lineage, is uncontaminated by religious dogmatism. Indeed, there are ideas within Buddhism that are so incredible as to render the dogma of the virgin birth plausible by comparison. No one is served by a mode of discourse that treats such pre-literate notions as integral to our evolving discourse about the nature of the human mind. Among Western Buddhists, there are college-educated men and women who apparently believe that Guru Rinpoche was actually born from a lotus. This is not the spiritual breakthrough that civilization has been waiting for these many centuries.
For the fact is that a person can embrace the Buddha’s teaching, and even become a genuine Buddhist contemplative (and, one must presume, a buddha) without believing anything on insufficient evidence. The same cannot be said of the teachings for faith-based religion. In many respects, Buddhism is very much like science. One starts with the hypothesis that using attention in the prescribed way (meditation), and engaging in or avoiding certain behaviors (ethics), will bear the promised result (wisdom and psychological well-being). This spirit of empiricism animates Buddhism to a unique degree. For this reason, the methodology of Buddhism, if shorn of its religious encumbrances, could be one of our greatest resources as we struggle to develop our scientific understanding of human subjectivity.
As Sam Harris puts it, Buddhism, if shorn of its religious encumbrances, could be one of our greatest resources in developing our scientific understanding of human subjectivity and, thereby, ethics. But herein lies also the ultimate shortcoming in all his arguments. The shortcoming in his arguments is that this process of taking Buddhism and making it "shorn of its religious encumbrances" is a Socratic process. This is the ultimate insight from Socratic Hinduism that is missing in Sam Harris' thesis.
The fact is that non-fundamentalist Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism can all provide answers - different answers for different people. Each religion has its own problems. The real problem with Buddhism are its contradictions. Also, ultimately Buddhists are people and people have all sorts of motivations, and so the ultimate issue of Buddhism - in that it posits a non-capitalistic, non-logical solution - can never be resolved. I would say that this is exactly what Hinduism truly is. Socratic Hinduism, any way, argues exactly this. That when the methodology of Buddhism - and what's more, Hinduism - are shorn of their religious encumbrances, they represent two great unique resources in the world. However, the great fault with Buddhism is its denial of the world. And with the denial of the world comes the denial of the existence of markets.
Insofar as Hinduism is happy to accept payments for services, it continues to succeed. And this distinction is absolutely key. As Gary Becker puts it:
I will follow Posner and try to discuss the general principles concerning the State and religion rather than the details of these Ten Commandment cases. To me, the overriding reason why the State should not make any law respecting the establishment of religion is the case for competition and against monopoly. Competition allows for entry of producers, including new religious ideologies, such as scientology and bahaism, or new forms of atheism, that cater better to the preferences and needs of people, be they spiritual needs or materialistic ones. Monopolies restrict entry, and hence preclude the entrance of producers with new ideas, including religious ones. Throughout history, religions have tried to use the State to give them a privileged and protected position, and in this regard have been no different than telephone companies and airlines that have used government power to keep out competition.Without capitalism, there can be no freedom. It is Hinduism that allows different ideologies to coexist and compete, and, therefore, offers a better model. And in this model, other religions such as Catholicism and Protestantism have a place too.
-+-
[1] James Horgan, "Why I gave up on finding my religion", http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2003/02/buddhist_retreat.html
[2] James Horgan, "Why I don't dig Buddhism", http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/12/02/why-i-dont-dig-buddhism/
[3] James Horgan, "Beyond belief", http://www.johnhorgan.org/beyond_belief_15276.htm
Update: Alasdair Gordon-Finalyson is a Lecturer in Transpersonal Psychology, it looks like, and this field aims to integrate scientific psychology with mysticism (!). Not that anything more needs to be said, but what about the fact that there has been evidence for any mysticism anywhere in the world for decades now?
No comments:
Post a Comment