Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
[Bookclub] Has Buddhism Been Distorted to Perpetuate Suffering?
Dakini
Veteran
Author says, "The power of organized religion to provide sovereign states with a bulwark of moral legitimacy while simultaneously assuaging the desperate piety of the disempowered swiftly reasserted itself--usually by subsuming the rebellious ideas into the canons of a revised orthodoxy. "(pg. 16)
Has Buddhism become a tool of state power structures to convince the disempowered to accept their lot, rather than to agitate for change and an end to suffering? Does, or has Buddhism historically, functioned to maintain the status quo? Is it in some countries a subtle method for guaranteeing the populace's docility on behalf of powerful elites? Or is Batchelor wrong? Is there a risk that Buddhism could be misused this way?
("Accept what is", "it's due to your past life karma", criticizing is "wrong speech", misinterpretations abound that could be misused.)
[Mod Edit: "Bookclub" tag added.]
Has Buddhism become a tool of state power structures to convince the disempowered to accept their lot, rather than to agitate for change and an end to suffering? Does, or has Buddhism historically, functioned to maintain the status quo? Is it in some countries a subtle method for guaranteeing the populace's docility on behalf of powerful elites? Or is Batchelor wrong? Is there a risk that Buddhism could be misused this way?
("Accept what is", "it's due to your past life karma", criticizing is "wrong speech", misinterpretations abound that could be misused.)
[Mod Edit: "Bookclub" tag added.]
0
Comments
Unlike here in the States where a politician may invoke the name of God occasionally (such in "God Bless The United States Of America", and the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance, in Thailand Buddhist rituals are a regular part of government functions, the most important one being the several times a year when the King changes the seasonal robes of the Emerald Buddha. Monks are present at many, if not most, formal government functions, and while the Sangha controls the monks, the government -- to a large degree -- controls the Sangha. Having said all that, the populace seems to approve, or at least accept it...unless you are, for example, the 5% of the population that is Muslim.
This ties in to discussions the forum has had before re: is Buddhism activist, does heartfelt compassion compel us to do what we can to improve others' quality of life, or to work toward a more just world? Or is Buddhism more about meditation, practicing the teachings, attaining our own enlightenment, and, if we're a monk, performing the occasional blessing or prayer on behalf of others?
When Stephen Batchelor talks about the "desperate piety of the disempowered", it sounds to me like he may be suggesting that Buddhism should be in part about empowering the disempowered. But maybe that's just me :-/
(P.S. Vinlyn--this is a bookclub topic, but you're welcome to contribute your experience.)
On the other hand, there was a bit of dismay when some monks appeared to be actively participating in the Red Shirt demonstrations just a year ago today.
I'd have a difficult time characterizing the daily life of a monk in Thailand. Despite a somewhat steady stream of lay people into many Buddhist temples, you don't often see the monks ministering to those people, except during somewhat formal ceremonies. There are many temples -- for example Wat Hualamphong -- that are virtual funeral factories. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that; in fact it may be one of the places where monks most often minister to the lay public. When you walk into many temples, the most likely activity you'll monks involved in is...sleeping in the wiharn or bot. I remember once my Thai friend excusing some sleeping monks saying they were meditating. I said, "You don't snore when you meditate." There's a lot of inactivity of monks in Thai temples. I personally didn't OFTEN see monks being very active in improving the lives of the people, like me might see by ministers here in this country.
I think that there is a dangerous line to cross, with a difference between ministering to the people and involving people in becoming empowered.
You're right that the situation is similar in Western religions. the most ministers/churches do is set up soup kitchens on weekends. But Catholic universities at home and abroad make education available for free to the poor, to marginalized ethnicities, and others in need, that's something. And there's Catholic Liberation Theology, which has actually achieved a significant amount to contribute to social change in some parts of Latin America. The thing I've noticed talking to the Liberation theology priests, though, is that their activism never applies to the church, to bringing about needed change in the church. But at least they do support the "disempowered" masses in levereging an end to suffering.
We in the West are free to cast Buddhism as potentially activist because we have freedom of speech, etc. And we haven't been raised in a society of "religious Buddhism" as Batchelor calls it.
First, I look at the increasing involvement of the clergy in politics in the United States, and while I questioned it from the beginning, in retrospect I believe even more strongly that it's inappropriate. As early as the late 1960s, I was appalled when my parish priest condemned Nelson Rockefeller from the pulpit because of the Rockefeller's administration support of modern abortion policies in NYS. I walked out that day because I believe in the separation of church and state, and just as I don't feel that government should involve itself in religion, I don't think religion should involve itself in politics. In more recent years, the hyper-involvement of evangelism in politics and government here in the States has led to, in my view, far more division of the populace than almost any other force could have.
Then, looking at Thailand, the country is not a pluralistic society to begin with. The history of modern Thailand is a Buddhist history (however, I'm not saying it's a very pure form of Buddhism). There are other religions in the country, but about 95% of the people profess to be Buddhists. A year ago today the riots...no, saying riots is to minimalize what occurred. The anarchy (and having been there at the time and seeing 31 major building burned to the ground and realizing that NO ONE WAS IN CHARGE -- not the government, not the army, not the police -- I worry about the stability of Thai culture and society. The violence one year ago was the worst in Thai history since 1767. Despite getting used to the relatively bloodless coups of recent history, the Thais I knew were stunned in disbelief that this sort of collapse of Thai mores could occur. And so, I am always cautious as to whether or not crossing particular societal lines could lead to the unraveling of society. Sort of like a string you pull from both ends. Up to a point the string becomes taut, perhaps even stretching at some point. But at what point does the string snap?
The Thai flag has three colors, representing the nation, Buddhism, and the monarchy. The monarchy is already in a state of crisis. The political situation is in a state of crisis. Do we want activist monks making Buddhism come to a state of crisis.
I personally would like to see monks more active in ministering to the poor, working in schools, setting up food services, etc. But I think they should stay out of politics and government. Because, only if they stay out of politics can they remain a refuge as stated in the Triple Gem. When you go to a monk for refuge, you shouldn't have to ask, "Are you a red shirt or a yellow shirt or _____."
Now we have to wade through a lot more to get to the heart of the problem, but it's still do-able.
And are you suggesting religion is inherently corrupt?
We certainly have a better time of it than if the Buddha hadn't taught; I didn't mean it that way.
Does Batchelor address conviction/faith? I don't recall.
Bucky, there are a lot of people around the world who wouldn't agree with you that meditation is Buddhist activism. I think I know what you mean--we need insight to improve our skillful means. But some people look at monasteries full of sitting monks, surrounded by human suffering outside the monastery walls, and see them as more of a burden than a help to society. On the other hand, I'm not aware that the Buddha taught activism. He set an example as a teacher teaching the dharma as a form of activism--teaching as activism.
Can someone boil that down to someone who does not have batchelor's vocabulary?
@Jeffrey Religion provides the state structure with legitimacy, the most clear example being TB and HHDL as god-king. I recently read a newspaper column giving the House of Saud and Wahabbi Islam as an example, too. The State sponsors religion, and religion does the state the favor of inculcating in the people the belief that prayer will solve their problems, and so channels energy that might otherwise be used to organize protests, into politically (for the rulers) acceptable behavior. I don't have an example for "subsuming rebellious ideas into a revised orthodoxy", but if you read just up above the paragraph you quoted (in the book), you'll see S.B. is talking about some of the historical changes and reconfigurations of the sects in Tibet, as I recall.
So this overall view of the partnership of State and religion, the I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you-scratch-mine bargain that S.B. (and some political analysts over the years, as well) says happens when a practice becomes a religion, can be debated. Is it accurate? Is it cynical? Is it something SB came up with to bolster his argument in favor of agnosticism/secular Buddhism?
Cheers Dakini!
Cheers Dakini!
Thx, Bucky. I was refering to S.B.'s argument that "religious Buddhism" is the problem. He implies pretty strongly that when Buddhism becomes religious, it becomes prone to manipulation by government. So the opposite implication is that secular Buddhism isn't prone to that. Is it really that simple?
The point being that our minds can attach to anything so I don't think a secular Buddhism is immune to corruption. If you define religious as unthinking, blind faith then I suppose that would be more prone to corruption than the "cool, calculated" approach of secularism.