0
1

Can certain badeasternphilosophy ever truly be so bad? (self.badEasternPhilosophy)

SenatorCoffee が 投稿

This is really not a critique of this sub or a complaint, I am genuinely curious.

I know this does not apply to confucianism, etc.. but as I see it in buddhism or taoism you definitely have tropes like impermanence or interdepedence that seem to me an encouragement of reinterpretation. The way I see it as soon as you have tropes like that they act like a sort of corrosive, and it is just hard to say where the line ends, if there is anything that stays fixed.

What I think holds up as steadfast critique is that you have to decide: You can not at the same time declare something as eternal, infallable wisdom and at the same time be all floppy about it. You can go with impermanence but then you would have to make a philosophical case for why what you think holds up/is ethical instead of just pointing at the buddha. Thoughts?

全 2 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]JustAnotherBrick 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I was thinking about this the other day. At what point does badeasternphilosophy become goodeasternphilosophy if philosophy and religion are malleable and ever changing? I am not a scholar of eastern philosophy, only an interested lay person, so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. But it seems to me that Buddhism, for example, adapts to the culture of the societies that it moves into. For example, Chinese Buddhism stresses Filial Piety, where my American Zen sangha has never mentioned it. I've never read it in the Pali Canon, but that probably has more to do with my lack of reading than anything else. I am going to guess that Theravada at least touches on something similar since one of the questions that you are asked upon ordaining in a Thai monastery is "Do you have the consent of your parents?" (not the exact question). But I get the impression that it isn't as horribly important as Chinese Buddhism (scholars please correct me on this).

I would actually argue that these tropes like impermanence or interdependence actually are solid pillars, not corrosives. And the reason I say that is because although American, Chinese, and Theravada Buddhisms are very different culturally and in practice, they all draw from these tropes. The thing that makes these Buddhisms seem different is the cultural practices associated with them rather than differences of doctrine associated with these tropes (note: I want to acknowledge that there are doctrinal distinctions between Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, etc I am not suggesting that they are the same, just that they all draw from these tropes). I wouldn't say that anything necessarily stays fixed, just that these tropes survive the migration from one society to the next. Perhaps this is because Buddhism satisfies a certain ideological niche, perhaps it is because no other religion can put these tropes together in the same "package". I don't really know. If Buddhism is a house, and the walls are the tropes which we are discussing, I guess the practices of these groups are like the decorations on the walls. They are all built of the same material, they are all houses, just decorated differently. Does that make sense?

I am really confused by your last paragraph though. For these tropes, they seem kinda self evident. For example, how do I make a philosophical case for impermanence? I am not a philosopher and I think I am beginning to tread into /r/badphilosophy territory, so I am going to stop talking here. I've attempted to relate my jumbled thoughts here, if I've committed any /r/badEasternPhilosophy transgressions, please correct me.

I'm also not sure if I've addressed your prompt.

[–]wannaridebikes 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not OP btw.

I don't think we can model how Buddhism would adapt to American society based on how it has adapted to other countries in the past.

We have all kinds of different traditions of Buddhism within our borders, who still serve people from "the old country" and their descendants. With regular immigration, they will have to continue to.

They exist alongside "American-style" Buddhism, and they aren't likely to meet in any kind of middle. All represent a form of American Buddhism.

Nearly every conversation I've seen about "what is American Buddhism?" concludes that it will basically be "what upper-middle class white people like", just like how the Europeans made Jesus white in the western world. They favor cerebral, irreverent "practice", and it's usually not family-friendly at all.

Maybe it's because "rich white church" is boring or something, but it seems like they are fleeing their childhoods by trying to make this relatively cold Buddhism the norm. Too bad for them, but speaking of how I grew up: black church is fun and lively, other American demographics have similar "emotion-based" worship services, so this "just sitting" niche Buddhism will remain just that, a niche.

Even with Tibetan Buddhism, which is more devotional, it's the same problem. Even they only talk in terms of "Tibetan or white", nothing else.

In this case though, I'm a little bit more cynical about that situation: these Tibetan centers tend to be where there are affluent donors and people who collect eastern philosophies like trinkets, and that's mainly white people in the U.S. So, in that case, it's kind of self-fulfilling.

To sum, if you're going to propose some kind of "American Buddhist philosophy" the question will always be "Which Americans??".