Concluding Remarks:
In these postings, all I’ve wanted to do is to ask people to be aware of the way such cultural domination can entirely change meanings on very important issues, including the way the Buddhadharma itself is taught and transmitted.
Very often, proselytization and even cultural genocide don’t happen with guns and swords. And so, from a purely Buddhist perspective, I invite readers to observe and examine modern-day threats to the Buddhadharma that can literally destroy these precious teachings from the inside.
Much is made of the so-called Chinese communist destruction of Buddhism. Yet today, China still has more than half the world’s population of Buddhists, and some of the largest thriving Mahayana and Tibetan monasteries as well as learning and meditation centres are flourishing there.
World War II and the consequent penetration of western values may have contributed to the decline and dire state of Buddhism in Eastern countries. The once-great 57-acre Daitoko-ji monastic complex in Kyoto, Japan, founded in the 14th century, today has fewer than a hundred monks remaining. And many will be shocked to hear that, seen from a different angle than that commonly presented, Americans may today be damaging the dharma more seriously than the Chinese did during the entire Cultural Revolution.
From a purely Buddhist point of view, it really doesn’t matter whether cultural genocide and the destruction of Buddhism happen aggressively with guns and knives or passively through imposition of outside values. If it diminishes the Buddhadharma, it’s just as destructive either way.
Cultural domination can happen in the subtlest of ways, even through invisible philological shifts that change the meaning of key words. For instance, one critic earlier praised western efforts to discard the “superstitions” rife in eastern Buddhism. If he was using the word “superstition” as defined in English dictionaries, then he meant it as an “excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings.”
But the Tibetan word for superstition is namtok, which refers to all discursive and conceptual thought. For a true Buddhist philosopher, this means that everything – from meditation, karma, and reincarnation to mantras, prayers, and even the idea of nirvana – is namtok or superstition. How the word is used, and through which cultural lens, therefore directly affects how the dharma is transmitted.
Similarly, I noted earlier that when western notions of good and bad, with their moralistic and theistic connotations, are used to talk of “good karma” and “bad karma”, then the teaching itself becomes seriously distorted.
It may not be “popular” to talk of such western threats to the dharma, and I know that many see my postings on this as too negative. But being positive about everything, living in La La Land, and comfortably going along with and accommodating all popular and prevailing cultural assumptions, isn’t necessarily helpful.
Buddhism should never limit itself to a “feel good” path. In fact, a key sign of genuine dharma is deconstructing samsaric entanglement and values. And in that regard, neither eastern nor western values are sacrosanct, so it is not sacrilegious to be critical of all such unexamined prejudices and cultural preconceptions.
At the same time, being critical doesn’t mean disrespecting other beliefs such as the Abrahamic faiths I mentioned. My only concern is for Buddhism to keep its own authenticity. I’m just saying that cricket is cricket and golf is golf: Even though they both use a stick to whack a ball, they’re fundamentally different games.
The same is true for science. I fully appreciate scientific efforts to explore and dig into reality and am delighted if someone gets inspired by Buddhism due to its affinity for logic and analysis. Again, I’m only saying that Buddhism has its own ground and doesn’t have to seek acceptance from or be approved, justified and authenticated by science.
All that said, I do personally feel badly for those who have been emotionally upset and hurt by my words and how I presented them. But, in order to bring attention to these hidden issues, I felt I had no choice but to be blunt and forthright, even at the risk of causing offence.
If what I did doesn’t help the dharma, then I truly regret wasting the precious time of those who read this and wasting my own time too. But I hope this discussion may at least plant the seeds of some questions and thoughts that people might bring into their discussions to sharpen their approach, thinking and interpretation.
In some ways I feel that is already happening. For instance, I was so encouraged to browse through the back and forth between Gravel Muncher, John Marshall and Kim Lodrö Dawa after my Question 2 posting.
In the end, my only wish is for the authentic Buddhadharma to grow globally. So from that perspective I don’t think in terms of east and west at all. In fact, as I indicated earlier, I couldn’t care less if a Japanese person forsakes his centuries-old noh theatre tradition and dedicates his life wholeheartedly to studying and singing centuries-old Italian operas. In any case, easterners have already adopted western customs, so it’s too late to care about that anyway. But my own greatest concern is the Buddhist teachings, which should not be hijacked either by archaic eastern traditions and culture or by the most “modern” western values and fads.
Finally, I also want to thank those who asked me to keep quiet and just do retreat and dharma practice. I appreciate your reminder and will definitely take it to heart.
