[Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation

[Dan Lusthaus]

Richard writes:

>Even such words as "viparyāsa" (inverted view) exhibit an assumption that 
>one is in a privileged position of superior insight from which one can deem 
>everyone who sees things differently as delusional.

On the contrary, viparyāsa points to taking something as the opposite of 
what it is, perpetrating a "reversal" (another way to translate viparyāsa). 
It is an evident quality of the reversal itself, not a byproduct of the ego 
of an onlooker. To claim that duhkha is sukha, what is impermanent is 
permanent, etc. (the classical viparyāsas), or that one has to die to get 
eternal life (to move westward), and so on, are self-evident viparyasas. No 
self-privileging is necessary, unless Prof. Hayes is claiming that it takes 
"superior insight" to notice the obvious. That gives short shrift to basic 
human intelligence. Most of us can tell when someone is standing on their 
feet, and when they are upside-down (viparyāsa) having turned things on 
their head. It's an observation, not a verdict.

The word triumphalism -- formed by taking the adjectival form "triumphal" of 
the noun/verb "triumph" and making it an -ism -- has an interesting history. 
The -ism suffix probably was annexed during Vatican II (it apparently enters 
the language in the early '60s), but the *Roman* Catholic Church selected 
that word with a full cognizance of its history, connotations and 
implications:

The Triumphal was a Roman ritual, parading the spoils of one's victories 
over those the Roman legions beat down and conquered. It could be held on 
the return of the victorious troops, or enacted periodically, with parades, 
etc., to celebrate the basic Roman élan of conquering and subjugating the 
rest of the world to Roman rule and hegemony.

Triumph has distinct military denotations, as did the ritual of the 
Triumphal (when it was still a noun). It is not just a substitute term for 
hubris, chauvenism, snobbery, nor simply a feeling of superiority, etc., 
though the triumphalist may very well also exhibit those qualities (they 
probably also have toes and fingers, but we wouldn't confuse that with their 
triumphalism). "Triumph" has figuratively been extended to non-military 
uses, but without losing that dimension entirely.

The Wikipedia definition is better than some dictionaries, since it is the 
second half of the definition there that is essential for something to be 
triumphalist, rather than mere chauvenism:

"The attitude or belief that a particular doctrine, culture, or social 
system, particularly a religious or political one, is superior and that it 
will or should triumph over all others."

To wit: "...AND that it will or should triumph over all others."

Religions that put emphasis on conversion (ergo missionaries, conquest, 
hegemony, etc.) run the risk of triumphalism (Christians and Muslims 
competing for the "souls" of Africans, for instance), since they are 
competing for body/soul count.

Triumphalism has a secondary meaning: "excessive celebration of the defeat 
of one's enemies or opponents" (Collins English Dictionary)

Key word: "celebration" -- which harks back to the Roman Triumphal. "Defeat" 
retains the military connotations.

Buddhism, as the third of the three global "missionary" religions displays 
remarkably little of such triumphalistic elements, though they are not 
absent entirely (an occasional fist-pump is good for the endocrine system). 
And while it too retains some militaristic vocabulary, albeit sublimated 
(e.g., calling Buddha the Jina, "Conqueror" -- though he conquers Mara and 
the asavas, and doesn't put heathens or infidels to death), it never sent 
out Buddhist armies to conquer the world by the sword.

Since Franz found my previous message gloomy, here's an old joke taking a 
poke at triumphalism.

Person X dies, is greeted at the Pearly Gates by St. Peter, who gives him a 
guided tour of heaven. "And here are the music clouds" (people in white 
robes stroking their harps), "and here are..." [and so on] Eventually they 
come to a high brick wall, and Peter puts his fingers to his lips and 
signals X to shhhh. They tiptoe along the wall, and once they are distance 
from it, X asks Peter: "What was that all about? Why did we have to be so 
quiet?" Peter replies: "That's where the Catholics are. They think they're 
the only ones here."

You can substitute whichever triumphalists you wish for Catholics.

The Triumphalist is one who thinks, when armageddon comes, his side alone 
will be victorious, his group alone will remain standing. Some of the 
criticism within the evangelical Christian community of "triumphalism" is 
not a rejection of that apocalyptic scenario -- that's taken for granted --  
but rather of celebrating it prematurely.
http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/the-dangers-of-triumphalism-2-cor-214/

Or even that its current manifestation is not sufficiently substantial:

http://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/timothy-g-gombis-against-triumphalism/

It is not only intolerant or nonaccepting on some level of the Other, it 
actively seeks to eliminate all Others, so that a day comes when there are 
no Others. A teleological monism of sorts, with a violent underbelly, and 
often overt violence, violence done in the name of eliminating the other 
simply because they are Other (e.g., Sunnis killing Shiites, and vice 
versa).

The "Triumphalism" Vatican II was trying to distance itself from goes back 
at least to Augustine, who famously said of certain groups that wouldn't 
convert ("see the light") they should be killed. That, dear friends, is 
triumphalism. That is not a mainstream Buddhist attitude.

The version Richard cited -- material success as a sign of divine favor, 
etc. -- is Calvinist (double predestination, etc.), not Catholic, and 
Protestants are not without their militaristic, repressive triumphalisms as 
well.

> learning to see my own misfortunes as trivial in the greater scheme of 
> things

That's nice. Another way to do it is to see that there is greater misfortune 
suffered by others that requires attention and correction, rather than 
becoming sanguine about extinctions, pollutions, mass killing of civilians, 
or blinding oneself as to the important difference between decimator and 
decimated. In the larger scheme of things (assuming a very wide frame of 
reference) it makes no difference at all whether any murderers are ever 
brought to justice (though society will be a mess to live in), since the 
planet will be gone one day, without a meaningful trace. But it does make a 
vital and crucial difference if you or your descendents happen to live in 
one of those unruly societies. Of course, rather than worry about any of 
that, you can always chop down a redwood, reminding yourself it was just 
living on borrowed time, geologically speaking.

Universalism and relativism are intrinsically immoral, while justifying 
themselves to themselves as adopting those positions in the name of 
morality. Ergo viparyāsa.

Dan