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.
Does it feel familiar?
chela
Veteran
Many of us Westerners have reported that we were drawn to Buddhism because it felt familiar-- like something deep within us already knew we were Buddhists. Here is an article that may explain that feeling of familiarity for Westerners, as well as explains how that familiarity limits our understanding of the Dharma. It's a scholarly article and takes some effort to read, but well worth it, IMHO. http://www.thebuddhism.net/2013/03/24/the-roots-of-buddhist-romanticism/
1
Comments
I watched a movie you may know of, 'Spring Summer Autumn Winter' and when I did I was transfixed. I was taken a back and it did seem kind of familiar to an extent, it felt natural and 'right'? Anyway, now I am in Thailand I have said many times over that I feel more at home here than I ever have in the West, I love SE Asia for many reasons :clap:
I think this is probably the thesis statement:
Taken broadly, Romanticism and the Dharma view spiritual life in a similar light. Both regard religion as a product of human activity, rather than divine intervention. Both regard the essence of religion as experiential and pragmatic; and its role as therapeutic, aimed at curing the diseases of the human mind. But if you examine the historical roots of both traditions, you find that they disagree sharply not only on the nature of religious experience, but also on the nature of the mental diseases it can treat and on the nature of what it means to be cured.
Further, the essay punctuates the importance of questioning our historical/cultural presumptions we bring with us when experiencing the Dharma:
Even when fully present, the mind carries along its past presuppositions, using them to judge which experiences — if any — should be valued. This is one of the implications of the Buddhist doctrine on karma. As long as these presuppositions remain unexamined, they hold an unknown power.
It's an interesting essay-- read it when you get a chance.
I was pretty skeptical of the essay at first, because I thought it was a very good example of when a person looks at something through his own lens, he or she has a tendency to see what they want to see. Sort of the "seeing the world through rose colored glasses" concept. And here he has at least 3 biases -- being a Westerner, being a Buddhist, and being schooled in Western psychology. Hence, a risk of wanting to see the strong link between eastern Buddhism and Western psychology. So, I was wary.
I would be more comfortable seeing such a link if Kant, or Schiller, or Jung, or Maslow ever saw such a link. And although I read a lot of Maslow at university -- albeit 40 years ago -- I don't recall Maslow ever talking about such a link.
However, I think your thesis statement ("Taken broadly, Romanticism and the Dharma view spiritual life in a similar light. Both regard religion as a product of human activity, rather than divine intervention. Both regard the essence of religion as experiential and pragmatic; and its role as therapeutic, aimed at curing the diseases of the human mind. But if you examine the historical roots of both traditions, you find that they disagree sharply not only on the nature of religious experience, but also on the nature of the mental diseases it can treat and on the nature of what it means to be cured.") puts it in its proper context.
Nice job, @Chela!
I think you are right, @vinlyn, and that the author is making the statement in the essay that we DO see the links by seeing through these lenses, as Westerners being subjected to Western psychology and looking at the Dharma, and that this itself presents "traps" (if you will) that we need to watch out for. I think it is a great point, and I think it's quite possible that some of us are in danger of learning the Dharma in a way that justifies what we have learned from Western psychology (whether we even realize it or not), rather than in the original way that the Buddha intended (which I'm still trying to get a taste of). I don't think it is even possible to shed or unlearn these ideas which essentially make up my understanding of life, but rather, we have to try to learn how to see through them in order to see the Dharma more clearly, through an un-tinted lens. It must be very difficult, and no wonder it requires a lifetime of practice (except for the Buddha, of course). Sometimes I think, "I get it," but I think it's important to follow with, "really-- do I?"
Additionally, Thanissaro Bhikkhu illuminates the fact that some Western Dharma teachers are teaching through "rose colored glasses" and, from my perspective, this way would be something many Western students would be instinctively drawn to. Who doesn't feel good when the feelings and ideas they've had all along are being "proven" to be right, in light of Buddhism? Definitely something I'm thinking about as attempt to further my Dharma studies.