[Buddha-l] Question for acedemic teachers of Buddhism

[Richard Hayes]

On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 12:13 -0400, Jackhat1 at aol.com wrote:

> Do you believe that teachers of courses in religion have an obligation to  
> make it clear why a person not born into that religion and maybe from a  
> different culture might find that religion attractive?

No. Of course I don't believe that teachers in courses in releigion have
an obligation to make a religious tradition seem unattractive either. I
also don't believe that students should feel an obligation to pass
either favorable or unfavorable judgment on any particular religious
tradition or on religion in general. If as a result of learning
something a student does feel attracted or disgusted, then so be it.
That reaction falls outside the expectations of either the teacher or
the student.

Incidentally, your description of how Eckel teaches Buddhism captures
precisely what it was about Buddhism that first attracted me to it. I
loved the idea of a tradition teaching that nirvana is an end to all
rebirth and of all consciousness. If I had been taught that nirvana is
anything but an oblivion that brings an end to tedious awareness, I
would have thought Buddhism quite silly. So if I had heard lectures like
the ones given by Eckel as you describe them, I would have said "Hit
dog! Finally there is a religion for me!" 

Given that one man's evangel (good news) may be another's dysangel (bad
news), I reckon a professor should probably just try her best to report
what the texts and the commentators have said over the years. In the
case of Buddhism, if I feel any obligation at all, it is to report that
there are (and apparently have been since the very beginning) very
different views among Buddhists about almost every doctrine and
technical term used in Buddhism.
 
> By the way, I have been asked to perform that role in several local  
> comparative religion courses. I visit the class and present my views on  Buddhism. If 
> not asked, I will bring up why I became a Buddhist, how it may have  changed 
> me, how some of its practices might benefit those not interested in  changing 
> their present religion, etc.

When I teach Buddhism in the university, I make no efforts at all to
conceal my own convictions. (I may occasionally be a little too
forthcoming. One student evaluation said "I can imagine it would be very
uncomfortable to be a political conservative in this class." But that
was a class on logic, not religion.) I talk freely about how Buddhism
has improved me (and how I have tried to improve Buddhism), but I do not
see that as part of a larger agenda to make Buddhism seem attractive to
those who aren't already Buddhists.

To be quite honest, I think it is a HUGE mistake for someone from the
West to become a Buddhist if she was not exposed to Buddhist symbols,
myths, images and practices from early childhood. Adulthood is much too
late to try to learn and then make sense of a complex set of myths and
symbols. Adulthood is a time to work on all the stories one was told as
a child. I deeply regret that I never took time to do that. The result,
I think, is that I have never become an adult in the tradition in which
I was raised (atheistic secular humanism), and I have never developed
more than a childish grasp of the religion I adopted as a young adult.
Looking back on my own experience, I conclude: What a waste of life it
is to convert to a tradition from foreign lands. In this I agree
strongly with both Carl Jung and the Dalai Lama.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico