I've only recently discovered your blog and have been reading this series with great interest. But I skipped ahead to read this chapter this morning and I'm glad I did. It's like a drink of clear cold water for me. You address many things that trouble me deeply about the "Buddhism isn't religion it's psychology" stance that it so common. I feel the point about cultural colonialism is very important too.
Clumsy fingers again! I meant to add that i was surprised by your circling back to a metaphysical perspective which sits comfortably within esoteric Buddhism. I hope this isn’t the final chapter as it felt a bit like an anti-climax after your earlier laser like analysis and excoriation of some of the Teachers who have at times seduced us.
Thanks for the comment. No that's not the end of it, I'm still sitting with a few more chapters to draw things to a close. I wish I had all the answers but this project has been a real slow burn and can't really be rushed. I am aware it might leave some readers with more questions than answers, but when it's finally done and dusted I plan to give away the ebook for free to all my subscribers here.
"Norbu identified this not merely as a scientific opinion, but as a “pessimistic habit”. It is pessimistic not because it makes you gloomy — though the realization that your existence is meaningless should probably ruin your afternoon — but because it a spiritual guarantee of nothing. It is a dead end. If you believe that you are merely the body, then ultimately, nothing matters."
I'd like to respond to the passage above. First, I'm not a materialist or an idealist; both are dualistic positions. Metaphysically, I don't think of mind and matter as being separate things with one grounding reality. Reality just is. Second, some metaphysical systems are built around reincarnation, gods, life after death, etc., but no broad metaphysical orientation requires this. Materialism obviously doesn't, but idealism doesn't either.
I do agree that the move from a religious worldview to a scientific/materialistic worldview has been difficult, but Norbu's "pessimistic habit" is a habit that can be broken, and it doesn't require believing in reincarnation or mystical realms. Just because someone has a materialist view does not mean that "ultimately, nothing matters." That view is just as incorrect as saying that an atheist can't be moral.
I no longer live in Norbu's pessimism; I don't need a "spiritual guarantee" to believe that life matters immensely, including my own. I can't explain exactly how I moved from this pessimism; one day I just realized it was gone, but I'm sure that the meditation techniques I learned from Buddhism, allowing me to look at life as it is, as it's happening, were a big part.
Buddhism has been able to absorb metaphysical views and manifest in different ways across the world. I don't see why that can't happen in the West. I agree that McMindfulness isn't it, but I don't think hanging onto mysticism is it either. Surely there's a middle ground. If that movement is from religion to psychology, so be it. There's room for everyone.
Thanks for the comment, I appreciate your engagement with my work here. Reading through what you said I found myself agreeing more times than not.
The middle way is a very fine line, and the way we grasp to extremes is quite unique to each individual. The Buddhist view, as I was repeatedly taught it, is neither a materialism nor an idealism. From a Mahayana perspective, our experience of life/the world is mediated through our mental representations/perceptions of it, hence the primacy of the mind. You rarely find a pure atheist or a pure materialist in the wild, but when that extreme shows its face it can get really dark. History has repeatedly show us in times of conflict, talk of "human animals" or "vermin to eradicate" rarely leads to positive outcomes. Likewise the current greed for natural resources is taking us nowhere good. Normal life, fortunately, is rarely so clear cut, and I agree with your point, that you might be a staunch materialist or a card carrying atheist but have altruistic or humanistic tendencies that are more idealistic. By engaging fully with Buddhist ideas, such as rebirth, realms, etc. is not to say they truly exist — none of my teachers made such claims — but most immediately they force us to confront our own unexamined views. Our rush to reject these things too quickly says more about us than the ideas themselves.
The exchange of ideas across cultures is as old as history, in our colonial past and present we grabbed many things forcefully without respect or consideration of the people they emerged from. Of course, if we want to create a psychology out of Buddhist ideas, we're totally free to do so, there's space on the bookshelf for another book. But I remember the Dalai Lama saying, and I paraphrase here, "Why not if it helps people — but don't call it Buddhism." Saying that, I do share your hope that the Dharma can manifest in forms suitable for our modern minds, that is the main motivation behind my work here.
Safe Buddhism is beige. That is my reaction to your latest chapter. Compare beige to the rainbow colours of original Buddhism and you can guess where my preferences lie. I rather grapple with wrathful deities and demons in caves than settle for pabulum. Please, keep writing!
I haven't gone through all your other articles yet being somewhat distracted of late by ayotollahs and beltway egomaniacs (!) but intend to do so. This one I found truly excellent, not only because of the lively qualities of your prose, but also the content, particularly the dive into the problems with reductive materialism as an a priori assumption, or view, now widespread not only in the West from whence it probably came, but in all modern, developed societies including Chinese, Japanese, African and so on, albeit each consumes the main dish with a different assortment of local cultural spice.
Whilst reading at some point I found myself addressing the author thusly: ' please go further with this, perhaps in two ways: 1) go deeper into Western materialism with some specific examples of well articulated thought/belief/dogma showing how this view/assumption is axiomatic to our understanding of 'reality', both objective and subjective. Also show strains in modern Western thought that have challenged this assumption (for example McGilchrest, especially his last few chapters in his magisterial The Matter with Things Vol II). In other words, without any concern for different views, such as those in the Buddhist tradition, lay out how seminal it is to modern mindset and culture, also how deeply flawed it is, how damaging, and how some have challenged it. This is of interest to all modern people, essentially, whether or not they are interested in Buddhism or any other spiritual tradition.
2) Then go into the Buddhist tradition and elucidate where it contradicts this assumption, either formally in scholarly challenges or debates, or by inference in that the Buddhist view comes from an entirely different set of assumptions which it often doesn't necessarily feel the need to fully explain since they are accepted as given by the audience at the time. Can you explain the difference between mindfulness as treated within modern materialist context versus the more traditional Asian, or even a modern non-materialist context? What shifts, what is different perhaps? Also the 8-fold path, the three kayas, the skandhas, many such things: how can we understand them differently after deliberately lifting the veil of materialism before viewing and contemplating them? This would interest those already open to spiritualism generally, but also the Buddhist tradition in particular.
All this to say that, just as I personally started to intuit a decade or so ago, this materialism issue runs very deep both throughout Western and modern culture, or civilization, and for those interested in practising the Buddhadarma. I believe most of the problems both teachers and sanghas have encountered in the gradual transmission of the various traditions into the modern-Western context stem from the inherent friction that takes place when a non-materialist approach encounters a materialist mindset. All sorts of strange things start popping up, often for relatively innocent reasons, but resulting in considerable confusion and disarray.
White Sail in my opinion is one of the best books on Vajrayana out there. It is dense, philosophical and uses idiosyncratic language, but that is part of its appeal, and unlike many other dharma books out there, I’ve been told he actually wrote it himself. Highly recommended.
I love this. It’s only through psychedelic experience that I was able to get a glimpse. Do you know Ron Purser’s book McMindfulness? He critiques the popularity of meditation techniques stripped of any context, utilized simply for “stress relief.”
I've only recently discovered your blog and have been reading this series with great interest. But I skipped ahead to read this chapter this morning and I'm glad I did. It's like a drink of clear cold water for me. You address many things that trouble me deeply about the "Buddhism isn't religion it's psychology" stance that it so common. I feel the point about cultural colonialism is very important too.
Clumsy fingers again! I meant to add that i was surprised by your circling back to a metaphysical perspective which sits comfortably within esoteric Buddhism. I hope this isn’t the final chapter as it felt a bit like an anti-climax after your earlier laser like analysis and excoriation of some of the Teachers who have at times seduced us.
Hey Bill,
Thanks for the comment. No that's not the end of it, I'm still sitting with a few more chapters to draw things to a close. I wish I had all the answers but this project has been a real slow burn and can't really be rushed. I am aware it might leave some readers with more questions than answers, but when it's finally done and dusted I plan to give away the ebook for free to all my subscribers here.
"Norbu identified this not merely as a scientific opinion, but as a “pessimistic habit”. It is pessimistic not because it makes you gloomy — though the realization that your existence is meaningless should probably ruin your afternoon — but because it a spiritual guarantee of nothing. It is a dead end. If you believe that you are merely the body, then ultimately, nothing matters."
I'd like to respond to the passage above. First, I'm not a materialist or an idealist; both are dualistic positions. Metaphysically, I don't think of mind and matter as being separate things with one grounding reality. Reality just is. Second, some metaphysical systems are built around reincarnation, gods, life after death, etc., but no broad metaphysical orientation requires this. Materialism obviously doesn't, but idealism doesn't either.
I do agree that the move from a religious worldview to a scientific/materialistic worldview has been difficult, but Norbu's "pessimistic habit" is a habit that can be broken, and it doesn't require believing in reincarnation or mystical realms. Just because someone has a materialist view does not mean that "ultimately, nothing matters." That view is just as incorrect as saying that an atheist can't be moral.
I no longer live in Norbu's pessimism; I don't need a "spiritual guarantee" to believe that life matters immensely, including my own. I can't explain exactly how I moved from this pessimism; one day I just realized it was gone, but I'm sure that the meditation techniques I learned from Buddhism, allowing me to look at life as it is, as it's happening, were a big part.
Buddhism has been able to absorb metaphysical views and manifest in different ways across the world. I don't see why that can't happen in the West. I agree that McMindfulness isn't it, but I don't think hanging onto mysticism is it either. Surely there's a middle ground. If that movement is from religion to psychology, so be it. There's room for everyone.
Hey Kenton,
Thanks for the comment, I appreciate your engagement with my work here. Reading through what you said I found myself agreeing more times than not.
The middle way is a very fine line, and the way we grasp to extremes is quite unique to each individual. The Buddhist view, as I was repeatedly taught it, is neither a materialism nor an idealism. From a Mahayana perspective, our experience of life/the world is mediated through our mental representations/perceptions of it, hence the primacy of the mind. You rarely find a pure atheist or a pure materialist in the wild, but when that extreme shows its face it can get really dark. History has repeatedly show us in times of conflict, talk of "human animals" or "vermin to eradicate" rarely leads to positive outcomes. Likewise the current greed for natural resources is taking us nowhere good. Normal life, fortunately, is rarely so clear cut, and I agree with your point, that you might be a staunch materialist or a card carrying atheist but have altruistic or humanistic tendencies that are more idealistic. By engaging fully with Buddhist ideas, such as rebirth, realms, etc. is not to say they truly exist — none of my teachers made such claims — but most immediately they force us to confront our own unexamined views. Our rush to reject these things too quickly says more about us than the ideas themselves.
The exchange of ideas across cultures is as old as history, in our colonial past and present we grabbed many things forcefully without respect or consideration of the people they emerged from. Of course, if we want to create a psychology out of Buddhist ideas, we're totally free to do so, there's space on the bookshelf for another book. But I remember the Dalai Lama saying, and I paraphrase here, "Why not if it helps people — but don't call it Buddhism." Saying that, I do share your hope that the Dharma can manifest in forms suitable for our modern minds, that is the main motivation behind my work here.
Safe Buddhism is beige. That is my reaction to your latest chapter. Compare beige to the rainbow colours of original Buddhism and you can guess where my preferences lie. I rather grapple with wrathful deities and demons in caves than settle for pabulum. Please, keep writing!
I haven't gone through all your other articles yet being somewhat distracted of late by ayotollahs and beltway egomaniacs (!) but intend to do so. This one I found truly excellent, not only because of the lively qualities of your prose, but also the content, particularly the dive into the problems with reductive materialism as an a priori assumption, or view, now widespread not only in the West from whence it probably came, but in all modern, developed societies including Chinese, Japanese, African and so on, albeit each consumes the main dish with a different assortment of local cultural spice.
Whilst reading at some point I found myself addressing the author thusly: ' please go further with this, perhaps in two ways: 1) go deeper into Western materialism with some specific examples of well articulated thought/belief/dogma showing how this view/assumption is axiomatic to our understanding of 'reality', both objective and subjective. Also show strains in modern Western thought that have challenged this assumption (for example McGilchrest, especially his last few chapters in his magisterial The Matter with Things Vol II). In other words, without any concern for different views, such as those in the Buddhist tradition, lay out how seminal it is to modern mindset and culture, also how deeply flawed it is, how damaging, and how some have challenged it. This is of interest to all modern people, essentially, whether or not they are interested in Buddhism or any other spiritual tradition.
2) Then go into the Buddhist tradition and elucidate where it contradicts this assumption, either formally in scholarly challenges or debates, or by inference in that the Buddhist view comes from an entirely different set of assumptions which it often doesn't necessarily feel the need to fully explain since they are accepted as given by the audience at the time. Can you explain the difference between mindfulness as treated within modern materialist context versus the more traditional Asian, or even a modern non-materialist context? What shifts, what is different perhaps? Also the 8-fold path, the three kayas, the skandhas, many such things: how can we understand them differently after deliberately lifting the veil of materialism before viewing and contemplating them? This would interest those already open to spiritualism generally, but also the Buddhist tradition in particular.
All this to say that, just as I personally started to intuit a decade or so ago, this materialism issue runs very deep both throughout Western and modern culture, or civilization, and for those interested in practising the Buddhadarma. I believe most of the problems both teachers and sanghas have encountered in the gradual transmission of the various traditions into the modern-Western context stem from the inherent friction that takes place when a non-materialist approach encounters a materialist mindset. All sorts of strange things start popping up, often for relatively innocent reasons, but resulting in considerable confusion and disarray.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the comment and great suggestions! If my work is thought provoking then that's job done.
Not familiar with Thinley Norbu. Just started White Sail, inspired by this piece. Thanks.
White Sail in my opinion is one of the best books on Vajrayana out there. It is dense, philosophical and uses idiosyncratic language, but that is part of its appeal, and unlike many other dharma books out there, I’ve been told he actually wrote it himself. Highly recommended.
Sooo true. Happily, some westerners are now suspending and seeing as only a view “matter is primary”. It changes everything
My miracle is that when I'm hungry I eat, when I'm tired I sleep.
I love this. It’s only through psychedelic experience that I was able to get a glimpse. Do you know Ron Purser’s book McMindfulness? He critiques the popularity of meditation techniques stripped of any context, utilized simply for “stress relief.”
Yea, I cited his book in a previous chapter.
Looking forward to getting the book, Stan, I’ve enjoyed this series of your writings.
I really admire your scholarship and lived experience within Dharma