Buddhism and the social sciences: A fitting response

Sunday, August 17, 2014

A fitting response

I have been indignant. And very annoyed. But I am proud of myself that I kept it together.

The past two weeks have been very strange. I was subjected to some angry outbursts from members of the Soto Zen Facebook group. The very first day I was there, I received some extremely inappropriate private messages. You can get a sense of how bad these messages can be from Tutteji Wachtmeister Dai Osho's page. I decided very quickly that I would leave the site, but not without clarifying each and everything that needed to be clarified. I had already gotten into a few discussions. Over the subsequent days, I got into discussions on even more topics: the place of narcotic substances in Buddhism, Buddhist monism, et cetera.

The trouble with these discussions is that you are often discussing matters which require many years of education. It is impossible to convey the answers to questions that you have arrived after years of study in a two or three sentences. Or even two or three paragraphs (example: quantum tunneling). The bigger issue was this: there was the constant annoyance of insinuations and allegations. I was accused of trolling the very first day (I was simply questioning concepts like "karma"). What really happened was that as soon as I received the first two messages, I decided to leave the group - but not without quashing the allegation and insinuations that had by then been made. (Another constant was the insinuation that I was actually somebody else. The name "Mary" was thrown around.) I have mentioned elsewhere what I did as soon as I was told about this. I used some fairly vehement language. I told anyone that was not getting it right quite directly that they were wrong. This is not something I have ever done before. But given the vehemence of the responses (many Buddhists believe quite sincerely in karma, for instance), I had to be even more vehement in my replies. Instead of resolving any issues, this simply escalated matters since the people who held these ideas (such as karma) close to their hearts were not going to easily give up said ideas. What's more- within a week, I was also accused of an instance of anti-Semitism by the admin Alasdair Gordon-Finlayson, and this was really the last straw. It crossed the line. This time I decided that I would not simply reply to specific comments, but would actually form a strategy.

This strategy was as follows: (1) I would post a notice stating clearly what steps I would take; (2) I would respond to every allegation, accusation or insinuation; and (3) I would clarify every single issue that may have been laid at my door.

It ended up being a matter of deploying some very aggressive tactics to ensure that I could get out okay. Without such tactics, things would have been worse. But I will tell you this: if you, as an admin, accuse someone of anti-Semitism, you should expect some pretty aggressive tactics in response. So, that's the full story.

That was a fitting response. And I am sure glad I got out of that Facebook group.

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.