Speculative Non-Buddhism

weaving a bloody tapestry of ruin

Archive for the ‘Traditionalists’ Category

Fanged Dialogue

Posted by Glenn Wallis on October 13, 2011

In sum

All X-Buddhisms are incapable of genuinely conversing with the sciences and the humanities. They are, furthermore, unable to comprehend themselves. For both, we need Speculative non-Buddhism (or something like it). All Buddhism can ever achieve is a Narcissus-like self-referential iteration of its self-given image—as this or that X-Buddhism. For Buddhism must at all costs preserve its majestic omen pontificator: “The Dharma,” Architect of the Cosmic Vault and the Keeper of its Inventory. Only by feigning dialogue at the Feast of Knowledge can Buddhism preserve itself. This is fanged dialogue.

*       *      *

In this post, I want to continue articulating the procedures of Speculative non-Buddhism. Because my method can appear abstract, it may help if I use a concrete example to get some traction. To that end, I want to refer to a recent article by Rita Gross called “Buddhist History for Buddhist Practitioners” (links at bottom).

Rita Gross is an exemplary Buddhist studies and feminist scholar. She is also a senior teacher in Shambhala Buddhism. I am not critiquing her article point by point here. What I am doing is extracting the major premise and the major conclusion, and then analyzing these to illuminate Speculative non-Buddhist theorems. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Accommodationists, Constructivists, Speculative Non-Buddhist, Traditionalists, True Believers | Tagged: , | 42 Comments »

Flinching

Posted by Glenn Wallis on August 26, 2011

Barry Magid is one of a handful of self-described Buddhist teachers whose work I unhesitantly recommend to others. I do so because of his clear-eyed assessment of, on one hand, the potential and limits of Buddhist practice and, on the other hand, the cunning machinations of us homo sapiens apes. As a result of the former, he courageously places Buddhism in dialogue with Kohutian psychoanalysis, invokes Wittgenstein on language, and solicits the views of contemporary poets and ancient skeptics alike. Because of the latter, he is able to perspicuously illuminate reflexive but unfruitful meditation strategies, such as the curative fantasy and the secret practice.

Barry Magid’s lucent, no-nonsense approach stems, I suspect, at least in part from his close association with Charlotte Beck, his teacher in the Ordinary Mind School of Soto Zen. (Magid received “dharma transmission” from Beck in 1999.) As Magid says of Beck in his recent memoriam to her: Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Traditionalists | Tagged: , , , | 37 Comments »

Ted Meissner Responds to B. Alan Wallace

Posted by Glenn Wallis on May 12, 2011

I would like to draw further attention to a recent debate. This debate is important for several reasons. First, it reveals a real, a serious, and an ever-widening fault line within contemporary western Buddhism. Second, as such, it exposes the outline of two compelling narratives about Buddhism that, I suspect, will increasingly compete for the attention of prospective converts in the coming decades. Third, it highlights the rhetorical approaches, values, assumptions, agendas, and animating impetus behind each approach. Finally, it can be used to further illuminate my project here by contrasting an aporetic-speculative argument with one that seeks to stoke Buddhism’s charism.

Some background. In the October-December 2010 edition of Mandala Magazine, there appeared an article Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Constructivists, Critics, Secularists, Traditionalists, True Believers | Tagged: , , , , | 21 Comments »

Post-traditional Buddhism Compared to Non-Buddhism

Posted by Glenn Wallis on May 6, 2011

Post-traditional Buddhism Compared to Non-Buddhism
Glenn Wallis

In a question posed to him regarding his recent Buddhist Geeks podcast, Hokai Sobol talks about what he terms “post-traditional Buddhism.” Below is a transcript of his answer, including an addendum made later. I thought his remarks might mark a good opportunity to clarify what I mean by “non-Buddhism.” I don’t mean for my comments to be a detailed critique of Sobol’s idea, or even much of a critique at all. Rather, I want to use his idea as a wedge, as a way to mark a distinction with what I am advocating. I will be brief and suggestive for now, drawing on what I wrote in the “What is Non-Buddhism” page.

Sobol, in the bio accompanying the podcast, says that he “is committed to the formulation of an authentic, no-nonsense spirituality for the 21st century.” Towards this end, he is working towards the development of what he calls “post-traditional Buddhism.” He articulates this form of Buddhism as follows: “post-traditional in the strict sense means evolving Buddhism beyond ethnocentric identities, parochial attitudes, and ideologically-based loyalties; in the broad sense it means also being alert to modern and ‘postmodern’ reactivity when it comes to spiritual principles of authority, verticality, and devotion.” While he advocates for the “post,” however, he by no means wants to rend this “post” from the tenuous yet tethering hyphen that separates it from “traditional.” In other words, he wants to “make a practice post-traditional without throwing the baby with the bath water of the tradition.”

Sobol’s post-traditional Buddhism, in other words, is careful to preserve tradition. It almost appears to come down to something like a generational divide. But, in this case, the younger generation is well-enough behaved; for Sokol sees a need to protect tradition from “modern and ‘post-modern’ reactivity.”

To both traditionalists and post-traditionalists, non-Buddhism must appear as ill-behaved to an extreme. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Critics, Post-traditionialists, Traditionalists, True Believers | Tagged: , | 6 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 78 other followers