[Buddha-l] Was Mr. Pol Pot a Buddhist?

[Scott A. Mitchell]

For what it's worth, regarding Žižek, there's this article in Contemporary Buddhism:

Møllgaard, Eske. “Slavoj Žižek’s Critique of Western Buddhism.” Contemporary Buddhism 9, no. 2 (2008): 167-80.

It's been a while since I read this article, but my sense was that Žižek's "critique" is rather diffuse, spread out across a half dozen different sources, none of which are really about Buddhism (for example in his book The Puppet and the Dwarf: the Perverse Core of Christianity) but are actually about what's wrong with the world in a more general way (spoiler alert: what's wrong with the world is free market capitalism) as filtered through the lens of Lacan. So, no, Žižek hasn't read anything written by contemporary, anti-capitalist Buddhists, and (in his mind) he doesn't have to since he's not actually taking about Buddhism but rather the large and ubiquitous market for desktop Zen gardens and feel-good spirituality books. Žižek's may or may not be a good critique, but I rather suspect that Prof. Hayes is correct. Žižek likes poking icons in the eye. I'd suggest we merely duck and get on our lives.

Best,
Scott



____________________________________

Scott A. Mitchell
Core Faculty, Institute of Buddhist Studies
Core Doctoral Faculty, Graduate Theological Union
Editorial Committee, Pacific World
BIE Program Coordinator

scott at shin-ibs.edu
www.shin-ibs.edu
scottmitchell.shin-ibs.edu

On Oct 15, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Richard Hayes <richard.hayes.unm at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:32 , Jo <ugg-5 at spro.net> wrote:
> 
>> Žižek obviously overlooked the role of Christianity, both in fostering capitalism as well as its current avatar, totalistic consumerism. See: Tawney, _Religion and the Rise of Capitalism_, and Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
> 
> I doubt very much that Žižek has overlooked either Tawney or Weber. Both are classics. He may have realized that the Buddhist ethic is the Protestant ethic (as described by Weber) on steroids. Everything that Weber wrote about secular asceticism in European (mostly German) Protestantism is even more true of non-monastic forms of Buddhism.
> 
>> Or, if he didn't, his main project (far as I've read his commentaries) is hyper-debunkmanship.
> 
> I think it's safe to say that Žižek (like Gregory Schopen) thrives on being (or at least being perceived as) outrageously contrarian. He knows that Buddhism has a ridiculously and largely undeserved good press, and he cannot resist poking icons in the eye. Most people expect Buddhism to be anti-consumerist and slightly left-leaning, so what could be more fun than showing that an unintended consequence of hippie Buddhism's "accepting things as they are" and "going with the flow" is that when the flow is capitalist consumerism, Buddhism would offer no resistance at all. That's my guess as to what is behind his claim, but I'll ask my colleague who is a Žižek expert what the real story is.
> 
> While I'd be astonished if Žižek were not quite aware of Tawney and Weber, I think there' s good chance is he not aware of David Loy, James Ford and other Buddhists in the west who are rather critical of capitalism and of consumerism.
> 
> Richard Hayes 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l