Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, John McDougall, carolve, Heather McDougall
Eisel Mazard wrote:
I had a guy visit me a couple of weeks ago, and he's a smart, well-educated guy, probably
3:40
one of the smartest people I've talked to in the last five years, and, uh, we talked
3:46
about Buddhism for several hours, and, of course, by the end of that time he really
3:50
had a sense of how many years I've worked on Buddhism and my depth of knowledge about
3:56
the history and other issues. But then he stopped at one point, and he told
4:00
me with real excitement, after we'd been talking about all kinds of problems of philosophy,
4:07
corruption, history, and he stopped and he told me with his eyes glowing, that he knew
4:12
one Buddhist temple that didn't have any of these problems, because, at this one temple,
4:17
he said, they just worship statues (they worship this particular god) and if you ask them anything
4:27
about Buddhist philosophy, they just preach the doctrine of "not knowing".
4:31
They just preach the doctrine that none of them know anything, and there are no answers
4:35
to any questions. Sounds great. And, y'know, this guy, again, he's not an idiot; he's really
4:46
quite bright, but I could see he was taken in by this.
4:52
And my response was not to question the value of a bunch of monks preaching that they don't
4:59
know anything, but to ask him a hypothetical question: how would he feel if I told him
5:08
the exact same thing about a Catholic monastery in Italy, where the monks just worship a god,
5:16
and if you wanna ask them any questions, they just preach their own pious ignorance? How
5:22
would he feel if I knew about an Eastern Orthodox temple somewhere in Russia where people professed
5:31
the same doctrine? Right away, his whole expression changed.
5:37
The concept of "pious ignorance" has a pretty deep history in Christianity, and, um, it
5:46
isn't well-suited to Buddhism at all. If you know anything about the history and philosophy
5:50
of Buddhism, it's got to be the most anti-ignorance religion going, although a lot of people conveniently
5:56
ignore that side of it. But in posing the question in this way, what
6:02
I was challenging was the mystique of the exotic that, really, for him, made the idea
6:11
of pious ignorance seem appealing. And, right away, if he was just visualizing how he would
6:17
feel, how he would respond, if we were talking about white, western people, doing the same
6:23
thing, with the same excuses, in a western setting, then, suddenly, it didn't seem so
6:31
appealing anymore. My own sense of apprehension of "the exotic"
6:39
and of how people tend to turn off their own rational faculties once something is declared
6:45
exotic actually is much earlier than my interest in Buddhism.
David Smail wrote:http://www.davidsmail.info/respons.htm
For what seems to me to have happened over the years is that a mechanistic and objectivist approach to people's distress that, while it didn't overtly blame them, dehumanized them, has been replaced by a 'humanist' and 'postmodernist' one that interiorizes the phenomena of distress and - often explicitly and nearly always tacitly - holds people responsible for them. Even though the pendulum seems to have swung from an almost entirely exterior approach to an almost entirely interior one, the problem of responsibilty has not been solved: formerly we had people for whose condition nobody was responsible while now we have people whose condition is largely if not solely their own responsibility. The reason for this is to be found in what these two extreme positions have in common: a studied avoidance of the social dimension.
It is true that, as the pendulum began to swing (for example with Laing's work), the social power-structure did indeed become visible for a moment, even to the extent of spawning 'radical psychology' movements. However, as far as the mainstream is concerned, the possibility that emotional distress is the upshot of the way we organize our society has never been seriously entertained and at the present time is if anything further than ever from any kind of official recognition. The imputation of responsibility is absolutely central to this state of affairs.
Spiral wrote:Do you ever go a day or a week without meditating due to a busy work/life schedule?
If you have a busy life and that is the reason why you find meditation helpful, how do you make time for the meditation?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests