Help
Sign In
aestheticized buddhism
October 2009 
Post-metaphysical Buddhism
Balder
Here's a truncated but enticing excerpt from an essay that was recently posted on the Integral Post-metaphysical Spirituality forum (thanks, Edward).
"Towards a Postmodern Middle," by Roger Jackson; from Buddhist Theology by John J. Makransky and Roger Jackson (Routledge,2000):
"At this point, nine years after taking refuge, my belief in the basics of the Buddhist worldview -- of those metaphysical doctrines I had first imbibed at Kopan, and sought for a decade to comprehend -- had almost completely evaporated. Logically, I should have stopped being a Buddhist. But I did not. I reached the end of my long skeptical inquiry and found that my sense of "being Buddhist" was nearly as strong as ever. How could this be? Shouldn't my painful awakening from religious dogmaticism have spelled the end of my relation to Buddhism? That it did not is due, I believe, to at least three separate factors, which may not be entirely idiosyncratic to my own personal history.
First, while over the course of time my confidence in the literal accuracy of metaphysical Buddhist claims weakened, other aspects of Buddhist doctrine and practice continued to seem irrefutable. In particular, I still found utterly compelling, and endlessly fruitful, (a) the central Mahayana philosophical claim that all entities and concepts are empty of self-existence because they are dependently originated; (b) the basic Mahayana ethical injunction, that one ought to be a compassionate bodhisattva, working as much as possible for the benefit of others, and; (c) the basic Buddhist claim that meditation -- whether concentrative or analytical, complex or formless -- is the best tool yet developed for disciplining one's mind, hence of altering one's way of seeing the world and living within it. All three of these perspectives, it seemed to me, were valuable quite independently of whether there are or are not multiple lives, does or does not exist a universal karmic law, is or is not a transcendent perfection like that ascribed to buddhas. In certain respects, to focus on emptiness, compassion and meditation, while letting Buddhist metaphysics go, is to make a move very much like that chosen by many Christians in the last two centuries: demythologizing one's tradition, and selecting from it certain doctrines that, whether or not they can be upheld in a traditional manner, seemed existentially meaningful and useful, regardless of one's historical or cultural situation. The advantages of such a demythologized, bare-bones Buddhism is that is allows one to preserve a core set of Buddhist beliefs and practices without having to subject oneself to the cognitive dissonance involved in trying to subscribe to "medieval" beliefs while living in a world shaped by modernity; its disadvantage is that it threatens to deprive Buddhism of the majesty of its vision, the mystery of its great narratives, the resonance of its art and rituals. Indeed, bare-bones Buddhism has little to differentiate it from secular humanism; one may as well read Camus as the Dhammapada.
There was, however, a second, crucial dimension to my sense of being Buddhist in a post-metaphysical mode, which put some flesh back on those bare doctrinal bones. Not only had my confidence in certain key perspectives survived my skeptical inquiry, but so too had my "feel" for the myths, symbols and metaphors, the sights, sounds and sensations of Buddhism. Subtly, inexorably, years of exposure to and internalization of these "aesthetic" aspects of the tradition had brought me to a point where they became the most powerful, single lens though which I viewed the world, a paradigm to which I had grown so accustomed that it seemed to form an a priori condition for much of my experience. So, my confidence in emptiness, compassion and meditation was not deprived of its rich, surrounding context; indeed, such doctrines and practices were for me quite inseparable from the scent of juniper incense on a cold morning, the sense or rightness I felt when prostrating to an image or circumambulating a stupa, the shiver sent through me by the very word shunyata, the sweet possibilities conjured by certain ritual songs, the mystery contained in the smile of a Buddha statue from Borobudur. Nor, despite my skepticism, did I separate those basic doctrines from the rich vision and language of traditional Buddhist metaphysics: I still could recite the Buddha's life-story, Mara and all, though I knew it bore little relation to what historians accept; could praise enlightened beings for qualities I doubted they, or anyone, literally could possess; could vow to liberate sentient beings in future lives I was not certain they would experience; could contemplate as primordially pure a mind I was not convinced was more than a byproduct of the brain. This "aestheticized" but non-metaphysical Buddhism has an advantage over the demythologized version of thoroughly engaging not just the intellect but all of one's imaginative and sensory powers, thereby providing a fuller context and greater incentives for belief and practice (see, e.g., Guenther; Trungpa). It is possible, on the other hand, to interpret such an aestheticized Buddhism as a mere exercise in nostalgia and self-delusion, a predictable by-product of the perpetual human need to create a vision, with reinforcing experiences, that will help make sense of a chaotic world. On such a view, an aestheticized and non-metaphysical Buddhism is the result of a cowardly compromise, in which one has the courage neither to accept traditional metaphysics in the face of modern doubts, nor to rest satisfied merely with those doctrines that stand up to the rigorous empirical and logical tests to which they, like all truth-claims, must be subjected.
The inadequacy of this critique of an aestheticized Buddhism lies, I believe, in a third factor of which I had become aware by the time I had finished my dissertation: the postmodernist discovery of (a) the impossibility of determining finally the "truth" of any particular worldview or vision, whether traditional or modern and (b) the inadequacy of defining religion on the basis of primarily core metaphysical doctrines, or determining the meaningfulness of a religion on the basis of the "correspondence to reality" of those metaphysical doctrines..." (pp. 223 - 225).
Access: Public
I just returned from the Thursday night meditation group in Berkeley and reading this I feel that post-metaphysical Buddhism is alive and strong in California. There has become a weaving of monastic practitioners with what could be considered common people.
“nor to rest satisfied merely with those doctrines that stand up to the
rigorous empirical and logical tests to which they, like all
truth-claims, must be subjected.”
Man, I read this and I think what harsh logic or rigorous empirical tests is really needed to just become mindful and open up the heart. A lot of research on meditation has already been done. Old news there.
I just heard about mindful schools program tonight. This aestheticized Buddhism or mindfulness education is helping kids in Oakland think differently about picking up a weapon. One Latino child after being a part of a peaceful experience asked, “is this for real?”
To me this speaks of a great sense of loss - losing the beauty of a mythical enchantment with practices that kindle awe and 'shivers down the spine' that, in this case, come when bowing to Buddha statues; something that would probably never touch me thus…
I think it's a sense of loss that comes with an even more basic conviction how much “the truth” matters. At some point in my life I found that I was a “truth-junkie” and that because of that much of the softer, sweeter and maybe 'childlike' qualities of amazement pass me by.
A sundown can touch me deeply, but it's not working that way if at the same time I remember that most likely many of the beautiful coloring stems from industrial waste particles in the air.
Recently I was struck by the fact that every morning so far after waking up I come back to the same sense of I that was there the previous day. Do you think such a realization would “stand up to the rigorous empirical and logical tests to which they, like all truth-claims, must be subjected”?
This realization led me to the concept that self-recognition is a very deep and necessary function of all systems; a cell must know what is itself and what belongs to it to exclude all matters that might be detrimental to it hanging on a little longer.
In pursuit of further and deeper truths we will suffer loss, maybe losing 'things' that are very dear to us. Yet, and this seems to be a fact of life, with this loss comes, if we further look into the matter, new and maybe even unprecedented joys - because that is what comes after we've come to accept the loss or temporarily forget the factors that lead to the destruction of joys we had before (like with the sunset).
- Just the ramblings of a recovering truth-junkie that once in a while still goes for the old dope…
The parallels to what might be called a post-metaphysical Christianity in this are profound.
Regarding the three original tenets, I would restate from a Christian perspective like this: a. There is no self - existance, but rather transcendent potential made evident through recogition of the interdependent Mystery of existance. b. the Truth of this interdependent, mysterous transcendent potential is made evident through culturally ubiquitous tenets to care for others, and c. Meditative prayer coupled with compassionate actions help to open one's eyes to the transendent potential within self and Creation.
Regarding the subsequent observations of demythologizing and then embracing the mysterious aesthetic value (I would again say transcendent potential!) as a applied to Christianity: there is profound truth in this observation. The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann comes to mind in this.
Here's a question: Does this observation of finding and acknowledging “aesthetic mystery” swing us back from the post metaphysical into the metaphysical?
Dave EC
Thank you, everyone, for your responses. Jordan, that mindful schools program sounds very interesting; I'm glad to hear about such a program taking place in my neighborhood, so to speak (especially since it's such a troubled neighborhood!).
Both you and Mushin commented on this phrase: “nor to rest satisfied merely with those doctrines that stand up to the
rigorous empirical and logical tests to which they, like all
truth-claims, must be subjected.”
I'm not sure how you read it – if you felt this was the author's actual position – but as I read it, he was articulating a possible critique of an “aestheticized Buddhism” (from an essentially non-post-metaphysical perspective). I don't think he was actually trying to articulate an essential position for the approach he is advocating. It's just that the following paragraph, where he presumably unpacks this, is cut off and we can't see how he develops this argument… I think he is also challenging the “truth junky” approach, turning more towards a poeticized / aestheticized view, as many post-metaphysicians do.
Dave, regarding your question: I don't think that move necessarily swings back towards the metaphysical, but I'd need to hear more about what you mean by “aesthetic mystery” to comment further. I agree with you that there are some potentially very fruitful parallels or points of contact between Jackson's post-metaphysical Buddhism and certain post-metaphysical developments within Christianity as well.
Best wishes,
B.
Hi Bruce,
I guess I conjoined comments about “the mystery of the smile on a Buddha statue” with the aesthetics to come up with that term. I'm guilty of reading more into it than intended. Happy mis-read for me, however. The rich aesthetics he speaks of, scents, smiles, traditions, speak of mysteries, perhaps repressed in favor of a demythologized “truth” cognition, but still mystery nonetheless.
For me, demythologizing strips away simplistic magical stories, and leaves behind true mystery, mystery that cannot me explained with words, but can only be experienced in awe and wonder, perhaps through scents, smiles, and traditions.
Perhaps the earlier stage might be considered mythical rather than metaphysical, leading through deconstructive post modernism, through the rational post metaphysical, into true metaphysical, true acknowledgement of a mystery where myth is stripped away and raw mystery is exposed.
Or, I'm just rambling. That's always a possibility. :)
Dave
Thank you Bruce, Dave. I very much like this: …acknowledgement of a mystery where myth is stripped away and raw mystery is exposed.
Sounds very beautiful to me. And also, there is much beauty in myth as myth, where myths often, when taken as truth, are actually dreadful and frightening.
So mystery enrobed in myth, which can be stripped away… As beautiful as I feel that statement is, I seriously doubt the possibility to 'behold' raw mystery; it seems that whatever-it-is only turns up as mystery when enrobed somewhat, even if that somewhat is called “raw”.
As the eyes limit the range of what is visible to us so the terms we use limit - or enrobe - any kind of reality we can share or experience.
Ah well, back to other ramblings :-)
Mushin
Thanks for the post and the ramblings, Bruce and all! Fascinating stuff.
Chewing on it,
Mary
Hey Bruce et al
Saw this conversation come across my screen and thought I’d chime in. The direction of the essay points to what happens as our experience deepens and self-identifications become flimsy, morph and get peeled away in layers (from the most frivolous and easily discernable to much of the deeper hard-wiring) during the process of accessing the “rawness” of pure awareness.
The concepts and identification that get stripped away in spiritual practice can seemingly render one a bit “rootless” and without the comfort of previous boundaries and mental structures. And certainly, the iconography and forms that accompany the spiritual path that enables one into deeper states tend to take on special value to the practitioner, at least for a time. The experiences that attend the rituals related to the practiced discipline (Jackson: “the scent of juniper incense on a cold morning, the sense or rightness I felt when prostrating to an image or circumambulating a stupa, the shiver sent through me by the very word shunyata, the sweet possibilities conjured by certain ritual songs, the mystery contained in the smile of a Buddha statue from Borobudur”) replace other sets of comfort zones and touchstones, and get deeply ingrained as new forms of self-identification. But even these pleasures ultimately lose their previous luster as one more deeply plunges back into that which is a priori consciousness itself.
Jackson writes: “So, my confidence in emptiness, compassion and meditation was not deprived of its rich, surrounding context”, and sets up this interesting trio of ethical and conceptual claims. I will add that the practice of meditation ultimately delivers a state of apparent emptiness. This “emptiness” is also inseparable from our own awareness itself in that once we arrive at utter stillness, we cannot be aware of other than what we are (which due to its formlessness and absence of content, presents itself as emptiness). But then again one cannot “know” this empty awareness as an object or even as an event in consciousness, but one can certainly “rest” in this basic (“empty”) awareness. Compassion arises as a natural quality pending one’s “return” to “consciousness” (in which subject / object relationships re-assert themselves). In other words, compassion becomes an effortless state of being having recognized oneself as emptiness through meditation. Also there are the magical qualities of “newness”, bliss and love that seemingly arise from this “emptiness”. And the “rich, surrounding context” that Jackson seems to be writing about will be eventually replaced with these very simple (“contextual”) qualities, rather than scents, sights, ideas and such. At the point that compassion becomes a natural state of being, the necessity of having an idea of compassion, regardless of how poetic and touching that idea is, becomes unnecessary.
So how exactly would awakening translate into our behavior and our own subjective experience, as we pay our bills, relate in our myriad relationships, pay attention with our senses in full alert, etc and basically just be the humans we are??
And as our experience deepens and the myths that once had magic to them lose their significance, is the recognition and appreciation of truth, beauty and goodness somehow diminished or lost altogether?
We all wake up as the same person day after day, with the cumulative tendencies that comprise our individuality as well as our unique perspective in consciousness somehow intact. The conversation of what human stuff gets left over after a process of profound awakening is certainly a fascinating one!
Mike