NEW BOT Телеграм, страница

❤1👏1🏆1

87 views05:18

A Caution Against Superiority Conceit

An argument to abandon preconceived prejudices against different Buddhist traditions.
By Bhikkhu Analayo

Part 2 of 2

Shifts in perspective from early Buddhism to Theravada affect the understanding of mindfulness as well as its cultivation when observing the breath. Changing understandings are similarly evident in the meditative development of the divine abodes goodwill, compassion, rejoicing in others’ fortune, and equanimity. Differences in viewpoints can also be discerned in relation to key doctrines of early Buddhist thought, namely dependent arising, impermanence, dukkha [suffering], and not self.

Distinct Theravada viewpoints on meditation-related topics, found in the Visuddhimagga, have in turn influenced contemporary meditation teachings. They stand in the background of current vipassana meditation traditions that have provided the starting point for the global spread of secular applications of mindfulness. In this way, differing perspectives keep emerging from ancient to modern times, showing that Theravada doctrines and practices have evolved and continue to evolve in response to various causes and conditions. Although in itself only natural, this undermines the superiority conceit of assuming that the Theravada tradition is the sole true representative of what the Buddha originally taught.

My last area of exploration is Secular Buddhism, which at times comes with the conceit of superiority over other Buddhist traditions. Just as in the last section I focused on Buddhaghosa and his work at exemplifying trends in Theravada exegesis, in this section I focus on Stephen Batchelor as the foundational proponent of Secular Buddhism. In both cases the main thrust of my exploration is to try to ascertain to what extent certain ideas reflect early Buddhist thought, given that both Buddhaghosa and Stephen Batchelor operate from the implicit or explicit position of accurately representing the teachings of the historical Buddha.

Contrary to Secular Buddhist thought, the construction of the concept of “Buddhism” appears to have taken place on Asian soil at an early time, rather than being a nineteenth-century idea invented in the West. Already the early discourses reflect the sense of some degree of institutional Buddhist identity, sufficient for it to be considered an -ism. The monastic Sangha as the third refuge of a Buddhist is an early element, as is the notion that the Buddha, as the first refuge, had eradicated all defilements when realizing nirvana on the night of his awakening. The attainment of levels of awakening does not imply a transcendence of a concern with adhering to rules of moral conduct.

Although the doctrine of rebirth, a matter cast aside in Secular Buddhism, need not be accepted on blind faith, its implications need to be understood in order to be able to make sense of the early Buddhist teachings. This holds even for the key teaching of the four noble truths. The sequence of presentation of the four truths appears to reflect an ancient Indian model of medical diagnosis and hence is not in need of reordering. Moreover, current academic research on the formulation of the Buddha’s first teaching does not imply that the notion of truth as such is a later element.

Stephen Batchelor’s secular “Buddhism without beliefs” turns out to be rather his secular beliefs without Buddhism. Instead of being an innocent questioning of outdated religious dogmas, his writings inadvertently continue Christian missionary strategies originally developed to undermine Buddhism.

The appeal of this approach among those unaware of the misunderstandings involved appears to be in part related to a resonance with an iconoclastic attitude. Such an attitude is a natural result of the experience of cognitive dissonance from the encounter between two different cultures, in the present case the Western worldview encountering certain Asian Buddhist teachings.