[Buddha-l] iNTERESTING US MAP GRAPHIC SHOWING %AGE OF THE VARIOUS RELIGIONS

[Scott A. Mitchell]

Hi Franz,

Well, I guess I should have said "as far as I'm concerned, I'm not so sure that that's my job." If you or other scholars and/or scholar-practitionors and/or practitioners do consider it your job, more power to you.

However, I have two concerns. First, I feel like it's important to include in this conversation the motivations for why we feel the need to define what it is at that muddy bottom., why we feel we must set some boundaries around those family resemblances. It seems to me that that's something that's generally missing from these conversations, and I think being self-critical and evaluating one's own motivations is an important part of doing this kind of work. Hell, I'd argue that being self-critical is an important part of Buddhism, and if I was forced to define a common set of family resemblances, that'd be pretty close to the top of my list.

So, if one's motivation to define Buddhists or Buddhism is to be a smug, arrogant, self-righteous jerk, knock it off. What's the point of that, other than to prove how smart you are to total strangers on some listserv?

If your motivation is to help spread the right dharma, keep up the good the fight. Go with god (if I can mix my religious imagery here), my friend.

Now, as far as scholars are concerned, that's where I struggle. (And, frankly, I take issue your suggestion that I or anyone else avoids this conversation out of difficulty or fear of arrogance. I don't feel particularly lazy, this struggle is difficult, and I take it very seriously.) To borrow a phrase, I do think that we have a role-specific obligation as scholars to define that which we study, and it's worth it therefore to define "Buddhism(s)." But let's be honest. We're defining people, and so I think this question of motivations is an important one. What's at stake in our categorizations? What are the implications? Who's going to be included? Left out? To me, it's not a simple matter of saying " 'X' is the core, muddy bottom of Buddhism" without having a broader conversation about the implications of that definition. (And don't get me wrong; I'm fine with excluding shysters from a definition of the right dharma, but what about otherwise goodnatured people who might have slightly divergent views?)

I also think it's important to have a conversation about good academic methods and standards. This notion that we can define "Buddhism" first, then go out into the field, do fieldwork, and discover that there are all these Buddhists out there who are doing things counter to what we assume, and then declare them all not really Buddhists seems backwards to me. Good scholarship, in my mind, goes the other way. We begin our research with an open mind, with the question of "hey, there are all these people out there who claim to be Buddhist. Let's find out what they say, what the believe, what they practice, and then, based on that, we'll have some working (and tentative) definition of what 'Buddhism' is." I admit that the results of that kind of scholarship might be terrifying. We might find out that Buddhism is not really all about happy enlightened people being kind and peaceful toward one another but is, instead, filled with misery and shysters and tricksters and bureaucracy and hypocrisy and all the other messy crappy stuff that makes up the rest of the samsara. But at least it'll be honest. Not ideal. But honest.

And that, to me, is the difference between scholarship and polemic. To be honest, I have no idea where I, personally, fit on that spectrum. And that's why I struggle. Even though I just argued for one thing, I have to be honest about the fact that that makes me really uncomfortable. I have to be honest about the fact that I want there to be some pure "real" Buddhism out there that we need to defend against the declining age of the dharma. But that, to me, seems like an article of faith. I have no proof that there ever was a "pure" Buddhism, uncorrupted by the vulgarity of humanity. And if there really is some sort of "Truth" out there, if, indeed, nirvana actually exists, I have no proof of that either. All I have proof of is that culture always changes, and that human beings are both generally pretty rotten (despite their religious proclivities) and capable of profound, transformative moments of beauty (in spite of their religious proclivities). So when I look at "Buddhism," all I see is change. 

So, as you can see, this isn't something that I take lightly. And my resistance to jumping on board the "let's define Buddhism" train is not because I fear being arrogant or because I think it's hard.

Finally, I think it's pretty easy to denounce Genpo, et al, without simultaneously defining anything. He charges money for things that arguable don't exist, and uses his position of authority to take advantage of women. Done and done.

I fear I have used up all my ranting capital for the year...
Scott



On Apr 1, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Franz Metcalf wrote:

> Dear Scott et al.,
> 
> Thanks for the rant, Scott. Agreeing with almost all you say, I naturally will turn to the bit where we differ. You write that defining what is and isn't genuine Buddhism is
> 
>> an important conversation to have -- especially if you're in a position of leadership within a Buddhist community. Defining what is and is not "really" Buddhism in that context is deadly important work. But, as far as I'm concerned, that's not my job (lucky for me), so I'll leave it to other folks.
> 
> I've argued with Natalie Quli about this, as you know, both in Berkeley and here on buddha-l. In fact, I just excoriated Genpo Roshi, my latest book, and the AAR in general, during my address at the AAR Western Regional conference. Why was I so critical of the AAR? For failure to step up to condemn folks like Genpo and me (well, only partially) when their work claims to represent the dharma but doesn't. So I'm still holding to the un-pc view that there is some muddy bottom or set of family resemblances that constitute "Buddhism(s)" and that it *is* part of our job as scholars (and especially as scholar-practitioners) to help discern it. That it's hard and perhaps even a bit arrogant is no excuse for not doing the work.
> 
> Scott, have you seen the Pew research on mixing faiths and practice in America? I think you'd like this report: <http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1434/multiple-religious-practices-reincarnation-astrology-psychic>. Anecdotally, my own students' views echo this mixing/blending/hybridity. When I confront them on how they can believe in reincarnation and judgment, simultaneously, they tend to respond with a willingness to let go of *both* views. Very Buddhist of them.
> 
> Franz
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l