Non-Buddhism

Keep It Simple, Stupid

By Henry Blanke

The fact that Western Buddhism makes a virtue of anti-intellectualism has been well critiqued here by Glenn Wallis and others so I will make my remarks brief. Think of the banal platitudes of Thich Nhat Hanh (aka. Think Not Hanh). These are gobbled up by gullible X Buddhists as if they were new Sutras penned by a resurrected Buddha. Western Buddhism, perhaps Zen in particular, is experiencing a pandemic of mindlessness passing as some sort or wisdom.

My best friend Chris has lived a good chunk of his life in a Zen monastery in upstate New York. This is the place founded by Eido Shimano of sex scandle notoriety and now presided over by Shimano apologist Abbess Sherry Chayat. It is one of the oldest and most well established Zen monasteries in the country. Now Chris is one of the sweetest, kindest people I have ever come across. He offers a sympathetic ear and gentle counsel to anyone who asks. I send him many of my essays and poems and he responds with praise and encouragement. But his gentle criticism is almost always along the lines of “don’t complicate things. Keep it simple.” Especially with my more philosophical stuff, which I write in accessible everyday language, his comments don’t jibe with my intentions or the matters I wish to address. Responding to one of my pieces titled “Fragments and Reflections on Suffering, Revolution and Enlightenment,” he responded “your point gets lost. Maybe more direct.”

Chris is by no means stupid, but he insists on dumbing down his verbal and written expression. His gnomic Zen utterances mimic teachers from centuries ago and often come across as, well…dumb. Chris specializes in a kind of blandly noncommittal neutrality which insists on contortions so to always relate to others and see their side (Have you ever seen Tibetan monks in fierce dialectical debate? They try to aggressively best their opponents and their points of argumentation are punctuated by sharp hand claps.) This especially irritates me when we discuss political matters. If Chris tells me one more time to empathize with Trump or that billionaires suffer like everyone, I will yank his rakasu and slap his shaved head.

A lifestyle of frugality and relative austerity may not be my cup of chai, but for Buddha’s sake Chris, indulge a little. For my part I enjoy a fine meal followed by a fat cigar and cognac. And God knows I revel in a woman’s voluptuousness. My motto is everything in moderation including moderation. But this is a digression. My point here is that fetishizing simplicity and making a virtue of willful ignorance and passive-aggressive see-the-other sideism leads to a bland uncritical acquiescence rendering one incapable of hard critical thinking or challenging the powerful ideologies of our unjust and oppressive socio-economic structure.

My friend Chris’ life of cloistered disengagement and uncritical acceptance of things as they are really harms no one. But this is a virus which has infected the body of Western Buddhism and elides the radical potential of Shakyamuni’s way.

_________________________

Henry Blanke is a Soto Zen Buddhist and Marxian socialist. He had a nearly 30 year career as a Bataille inspired academic librarian and now counsels those struggling with substance abuse. He has written on Herbert Marcuse, the politics of information and most recently on the possible intersections between Zen practice and socialism. He lives in New York City and fancies himself a bohemian cosmopolite, a flaneur and a passionate jazz lover, poet, and home cook. See also, “A Thought Experiment for X-Buddhists“

10 responses to “Keep It Simple, Stupid”

George Vockroth

August 12, 2023

I’ve got news for you Henry. The fact that this, “passive-aggressive see-the-other sideism leads to a bland uncritical acquiescence rendering one incapable of hard critical thinking,” is hardly limited to Zennists or those of any ‘turn the other cheek’ spiritual persuasion. Rather, I think it is endemic to secular liberalism more generally. I am often personally at odds with good friends who practice this anodyne acquiescence as their default mode. Sometimes I just keep my mouth shut. Other times I’ll make a measured rejoinder. And at others still I explode in an angry rant, e.g. ‘pull your fucking head out of your ass.’ Please!
Glenn Wallis

August 12, 2023

An ” anodyne acquiescence” indeed! Great term, George. I also have those three responses in my interpersonal arsenal. In terms of the socially frowned on third option, two terms immediately come to mind. The first is Sara Ahmed’s “feminist killjoy,” and the second is Martin Luther King’s “maladjusted” (towards the end of the speech).
George Vockroth

August 12, 2023

Oh the shame of a maladjusted ‘masculinist’!
Wtompepper

December 11, 2023

“indulge a little. For my part I enjoy a fine meal followed by a fat cigar and cognac. And God knows I revel in a woman’s voluptuousness.”

I know there’s not much discussion here, but I wonder if anyone else found this as disturbing as I did? I suppose considering women in the same category as cigars and booze is typical of the Zen mindset, so typical a statement like this can pass unnoticed. But should it?
Brian

December 12, 2023

Tom- Yes, it should.
ephprat

December 13, 2023

@Wtompepper, I think there is much discussion here. I read the quote as objectifying another living creature which disturbed us. But we also know this is natural, driven by the evolutionary need to reproduce, a process that will use whatever leverage it can to bend its hosts to its will (design).

It is curious that we/I was not disturbed by Blanke’s BDSM post. But, then again, nobody was objectified en masse (that we recall) outside of intimate consent. And even further, we were even more at disease with O’Connell’s “Nice, but Not Really” article. And in the same light, the general message of this piece, Keep It Simple, Stupid, in which one could argue that O’Connell’s piece is related to, the overall thesis is something we feel uncomfortable about. That said, we have the disposition to be accepting and open to that which makes us uncomfortable (we suspect Blanke, and O’Connell would label us as nice and stupid).

That said, we are just as prone to impulsive reactivity as anyone else and enjoy a sense of superiority and self-satisfaction from doing so. We are also just as prone to fantasizing and objectifying, in our minds, seemingly without our consent, others and whole classifications of others (ideology is insidious at all levels, thus the need for a mindfulness practice) At some point, it clearly was a winning strategy in our evolutionary makeup as it does seem to be biologically and physically almost universal for most humans. That is, it seems almost universal to derive pleasure and ego satisfaction from stereotyping, objectifying (males especially, but not exclusively), and judging others.

For us, the need to judge, stereotype, or objectify others is grist for the mindfulness mill. It is part of who we are, evolution designed us this way, yet something we want to mindfully be able to respond rather than react when such infuriating situations arise. Indeed, it is a process of becoming apparently nice and even stupid ;). A better word, though, is becoming compassionate, we think.

We will add, as infuriating as it is, not everyone is ready to gnow much of who we are is driven by relentless, mindless, microscopic machines who have the power to override all cerebral volitions that are not mindful of their control. So, until a person realizes how futile all attempts to the master and rule their lives up to the point of realization, that deep down gnowing of futility, which ideally spawns as much a universal sense of compassion we can know, sometimes, until that person becomes mindful in this way, all we can do is reflect such a person’s ungnowing. All else is vanity.
Wtompepper

December 13, 2023

I can’t agree, ephrat. I don’t believe most people get a sense of superiority and satisfaction from pointing out when others objectify some group. Speaking for myself, I find it uncomfortable and unpleasant, and don’t do it nearly enough. I do believe that we need not wait for others to just “become mindful,” that someone needs to point out their errors. Pointing out implicit sexism, homophobia, and racism can help some people notice it, and make a change in the collective mind…

Of course, it doesn’t help most people. Most people will just be patronizing and dismissive with someone who points out their errors. I recall one instance when my brother was being particularly racist, and I finally objected; he just became condescending and smug, and said I was being naive, if I lived around more black people I’d see that it isn’t racism, they just really are inferior humans. So, I don’t point out his racist remarks anymore—I just avoid him altogether. Still, I do believe letting implicit sexism/racism/homophobia go unmentioned perpetuates a collective mind that is dangerously oppressive. Much as I hate having to do it, I think I ought to do it more often.

By the way, I also object to the notion that “evolution” has a “will” that it imposes on us somehow. Most of our tendencies to racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of hatred are the result of our social formation, not our genes. Blaming genetics is an easy out for too many people, and helps prevent us from changing the actual root cause of such attitudes.
Eph (they/them)

December 13, 2023

The meta issue I was addressing was the statement ” there’s not much discussion here.” Clearly there is much discussion. We do not have to agree, it is more engaging if we don’t IOO. But there is from our perspective a lot of discussion to be had simply because we believe we disagree (and experience disturbing feelings). All the more curious because I agreed that I found the quoted remark disturbing as well.

Interestingly, this past week’s episode of “Slow Horses” on appleTV had the major character Jackson Lamb, portrayed brilliantly by Gary Oldman, present more obnoxiously and vulgarly than usual, and trust me, Gary Oldman’s portrayal of Jackson Lamb could hardly be more revolting and still be acceptable for TV. I mentioned this on one of the chat forums and someone took offense at my noticing how Lamb was even more offensive this week than usual. The person was like, “it’s just acting bro!” And of course, that is true, but my reactive response, which I believe is valid even if reactionary, was that because I am viscerally offended by Oldman’s portrayal of Lamb, I’m actually appreciating Oldman’s acting more than someone who remains totally objective and unmoved (ego boost score 1 for me). I also watched last night “Tár” which has similar themes, also brilliantly portrayed by Cate Blanchett, even if the movie is difficult to keep straight and fully grok. Anyways the point is our programming (from whatever, evolution, society, ideologies, all the above, etc.) has us so twisted that often we only see where someone’s opinion is at odds with our own opinions ignoring where there is agreement. I was trying to do that with both O’Connell’s and Blanke’s pieces, while sharing my reason for agreeing with you which doesn’t need have to agree with your reasons for your feelings but doesn’t invalidate either of our feelings or opinions. We, in our verbose and lengthy way, were simply acknowledging that we found their pieces disturbing and offensive in some ways, but also that it was OK, for us/me, to allow them to express their perspectives freely in their own way and own my own feelings of being disturbed and offended as my sh*t.

In the end it really is better to act nice and stupid because entering the dialectical fray only perpetuates the very thing we object to for the majority, as you allude to in your reply.

For someone like me, we see a race between entropy and survival. Entropy will win out, without a doubt, and in this, we experience even more compassion. But, if we can find a way to thrive and flourish (rather than just survive), then that is desirable. We’ve been active in various movements since the 80’s, and while activism is important, and even vital, and there has been change (even if not always permanent), nothing has affected greater change, from our perspective than the movement towards greater mindfulness and compassion (and information/knowledge liberation/piracy), as unconditionally as each individual can muster.

I’d be interested in having a dialogue with you in regard to whether or not our genes, evolution, pulls the wool over our eyes not unlike some ideologies, in fact it is what we are most engaged with at the moment. The difference I would put out here is compassion. Our position that our need to judge and blame are evolutionary, and yet we are all simply judging and blaming as we are designed to do, as a means of survival and gaining reproductive status (even if we have no intention of reproducing). Once we perceive these dialectical realities, because nature, evolution, our genes, do not have, as you agree, volition (we and in the field often resort to speaking as if it/they do have a will, design, volition, with no other better option that imports the power of it/they/any other, has on their hosts), but are rather ignorantly mechanical towards surviving long enough to increase the odds of replication (of the genes, and only incidentally the hosts that transport the genes from century to century), create (dialectical reality). The resolution of which would reside in a sort of evolutionary DBT, dialectical mindfulness (hypothesis), and thus compassion for all of us slaves of evolution and our genes. Where you see people copping-out via evopsych, we see the opportunity to become even more universally compassionate for humanities innate universal shortcomings. If we are right, by actively judging and blaming others is simply submitting unmindfully to our programming. Only through mindfulness can one step out of the cycle of hate and blame.

Whether we wish to admit it or not, we are all monsters in some way. Feeling superior to others (even if only of bigots and racists), as much as we may wish to deny it, perpetuates an ideology of them and us.

Indeed, the innate ideologies that cause suffering are where we find the most profound and meaningful application of mindfulness, compassion, and nonjudgment.
her

December 30, 2023

@wtompepper – Your flagging of the language is fair, seen, and appreciated…at least by one reader. Having known Mr. Blanke for a time, I can assure you there is no misreading or misunderstanding on your part. The way in which he lists women along with the other items to sample is how he unabashedly views and experiences sex. The moral or personal reflection of such beliefs I leave for you to decide.
flaneurhenry

January 3, 2024

The context in which I wrote the offending sentences was in encouraging my friend Chris to enjoy sensual pleasure more than he does. He lives a rather absentimonious Zen lifestyle. For me, the company of a woman who I find sexy is delightful. But I did not wish to give the impression that I see women as merely a means to my own pleasure.

@her: Please tell me how I know you. You can email me if you like at flaneurhenry@gmail.com or respond here.