Real Life with Ryuei

Post-Modern Buddhism?

Awhile back I sometimes referred to myself as a "post-modern Buddhist." Upon reflection, I realized that I was not quite sure what "post-modern" actually meant other than that it was a term used by French literary critics and people who went to Burning Man and grew goatees. So I went to Borders and tried to read up on "post-modernism" in those "Philosophy for Utter Morons" type books so I could get a quick definition. I then realized that no one else could agree on what it was supposed to mean either. I guess "post-modern" is just something that is supposed to sound cool and hip but has no real meaning. This, actually, is what the critics of "post-modernism" say about it.

Still, in my mind, I guess "post modern" had become a convenient label to sum up a bunch of attitudes, styles, and approaches that I am attracted to: the music of Devo, movies like Repo Man or Ghost Dog, the works of Joss Whedon, the Venture Brothers and other such cartoons, PJ Harvey, etc...

I think there are two themes that seem to pop up in all these things that I associate with "post-modernism" (whatever that may mean):

1. A cynical and black humored look at "modernity" or modern life. In other words, after all the promises and fanfare re how we are so much better off with science (or should I say SCIENCE!) and democracy and "progress" - the human condition remains enmired in selfishness, greed, banality, cruelty, debasement, wretchedness, and above all pettiness of tragic proportions.

As an illustration of what I am talking about - think about the show Gilligan's Island and how it portrays an idylic modern society. There you have a supposed cross-section of North Americans (though they are all white and allegedly straight) from the farm girl Marianne to the wealthy Howels to the naive Gilligan to the super-scientist "Professor." And they all get along with equanmity in what seems to be a mini-egalitarian democracy living quite cozily thanks to "The Professors" contraptions.

Star Trek is another modern dream - perhaps the most radical example of one - another cross section of humanity, living in a very democratic and egalitarian manner (esp. for what is supposed to be a military exploration ship), and all their needs are provided for by science. Hunger, poverty, disease, and even war (at least among humans) has been eradicated. Even religion has become absent as scientific progress has overcome all.

Now contrast this with Repo Man. Repo Man shows modern society as a toxic waste dump full of losers constantly posing as tough guys (and gals) and ostensibly living by various "codes" which are nothing more than pretentious attempts to cover up their self-serving greedy, petty, and vindictive natures. The society around them is crumbling in obvious ways - the city looks decayed or even abandoned, dying homeless people fill the streets, people turn on each other at the slightest provocation or promise of even a small amount of gain. Government and religion are seen as hopelessly corrupt and basically act as dishonestly and thuggishly as the punks and repo men (legalized car thieves as one of the repo men puts it). The only person who actually rises above any of this (quite literally in the end) is a total lunatic.

The early Devo albums are another example. They mock corporate life and progress, and propose that instead of evolving (with the idea of inevitable progress that comes with that idea) we may actually be devolving - thus the name "Devo" for "Devo"lving.

Need I even bother commenting on how the Venture Brothers cartoons are a critique (and a very funny one) of modernism?

I could go on. The point being that the rational and progressive scientific utopia promised by modernism has failed in its promise. Real life is not automatically progressive, and not everything can be fit within rational boundaries. As Gandhi is supposed to have said, "There is no system so perfect that people do not have to be." In other words, the story of modern rational scientific progress didn't take into account the chaotic and irrational nature of life that defies what can be rationally pigeon-holed and controlled, and the contradictions between theory and reality have created humorous but also tragic incongruities.

2. The breakdown of traditional categories and genres. Kipling supposedly said "East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet." But this statement can now be seen to be ludicrous, along with other similar statements that propose rigid dichotomies or which attempt to neatly categorize things. Today, kids all over North America (going back to my generation actually) grow up watching Japanese cartoons. In Japan, those who are spiritual seekers read the Bible or attend Christian prayer groups. The Internet has made the world much smaller for those with access to it, and people can converse and trade information and ideas (and porn) with like minds all over the world.

Besides the meeting or perhaps crashing together of various cultures, there is also the crashing together of genres and fields of study that used to be seen as residing in separate compartments.

As an example of all of this, Joss Whedon's series Firefly and the movie Serenity portray a future interstellar society that is a mix of American West and Chinese. Planets are terraformed so that cattle ranches can be set up on them, herded by cowboys (and cowgirls) on horseback. Instead of herding them to the railroad they herd them into ships for planets in need of beef. The cowboys read and speak (and curse) in Chinese. In the future (as now) eveything comes together in unique combinations.

Another thing that comes together is comedy, action, and drama. These used to be seen as genres that did not or could not be mixed. But life is funny and dramatic and horific. Life is not just one genre. Not only Joss Whedon's works, but movies like Shawn of the Dead, or Dead Man, or Max Brook's novel World War Z all tell stories in ways that mix and juxtapose the horrific and the hilarious - and come across as more genuinely human as a result.

To briefly mention the musical side of this - my favorite artists are those like PJ Harvey or Sheila Chandra and others who mix and match musical styles and traditions. Then there are those who use music to go beyond music and are out to create a certain ambiance or mood or a vivid impression. Though they are indeed talented musicians, I think Tool is a good example of a group who are not just trying to create songs but whole worlds and auditory atmospheres wherein music just plays a part of a greater whole.

So this is what I associate with post-modern - a black humored critique of the failed promise of modernity and a mixing of cultures and genres aiming to breakthrough the limitations of any single limited perspective.

Recently I decided to see how Wikipedia defined all these things - consulting the concensus of the net's pundits. The definition for Post Modern contained some statements that resonated with me:

"Postmodernist scholars argue[citation needed] that a global, decentralized society such as ours inevitably creates responses/perceptions that are described as postmodern, such as the rejection of what are seen as the false, imposed unities of meta-narrative and hegemony; the breaking of traditional frames of genre, structure and stylistic unity; and the overthrowing of categories that are the result of logocentrism and other forms of artificially imposed order. Scholars who accept the division of postmodernity as a distinct period believe that society has collectively eschewed modern ideals and instead adopted ideas that are rooted in the reaction to the restrictions and limitations of those ideas, and that the present is therefore a new historical period. While the characteristics of postmodern life are sometimes difficult to grasp, most postmodern scholars point to concrete and visible technological and economic changes that they claim have brought about the new types of thinking."

On the other hand the article also states:

"Critics of the idea claim[citation needed] that it does not represent liberation, but rather a failure of creativity, and the supplanting of organization with syncretism and bricolage; this latter concept can only be described as anti-intellectual. They argue that postmodernism is obscurantist, overly dense, and makes assertions about the sciences that are demonstrably false."

Looking over this and following up on some of the links I find that I agree with the idea that we can no longer take seriously any "meta-narratives" by which is meant some overriding story (usually mythological, religious, or philosophical) that explains life. And as I mentioned, I rather enjoy the breaking down of traditional frames of genre, structure, and stylistic unity (even if it does just amount to bricolage or syncretism in art). Of course, I don't think reality can be encapsulated by purely rational explanations or verbal defintions (or logocentric). On the other hand, I balk at anti-intellectualism and the banality of just recycling bits and pieces of traditions just for the sake of slamming things together that have not been put together before.

So again, I find that I resonate with many ideas or attitudes that are supposed to be "post-modern" but I balk at others. Best, probably, not to use the word at all. However, there are ways in which I would like to play with the terms modernism and post-modernism in connection with my approach to Buddhism.

On the one hand, modernism is about deconstructing the old myths and traditions and submitting them to a rational critique. This is something that I do support. So in this I guess I am a Buddhist modernist. For instance, the old Mt. Sumeru cosmology I wrote about in Lotus World simply cannot stand in light of what we know about geography, geology, astronomy, astrophysics, and even biology. In the case of Buddhist teachings regarding the workings of the mind and mental states in the Abhidharma systems, I also believe these need to be subjected to scientific testing and research. Modern neuroscience has given us many new tools with which to do this. So again, I am in favor of subjecting Buddhism to a modernist rational scientific critique with all the demythologizing that goes with it. That probably makes me a Buddhist modernist.

Another thing that makes me a modernist is that I do think it is better and more progressive to follow rational scientific modes of inquiry rather than to wallow in medieval dogmatism and superstitions. And on the whole, I do think the rational values of the European Enlightenment (the result of European's freeing themselves from the dogmatism and authoritarianism of "Christendom") is the right way to go. I am very sympathetic to those who teach that if the rational humanism of European Enlightenment and Asian Confucianism can be further developed we will be able to transcend the superstition and tribalism of the past and create a more civilized world (of course a critique of the patriarchal assumptions still embedded in the Enlightenment and Confucianism will necessarily be part of this project). In holding to such rational, humanistic, and progressive values and being fairly optimistic about it I guess that makes me a "modern." And since I see Buddhism as being capable of making integral contributions to creation of such an "Enlightened" society, that makes me a Buddhist Modernist.

But on the other hand, I also believe in remythologizing or, as some call it, reenchantment. There is more to the world and to us than just rational scientific principles of biology and physical matter. I think that the traditional myths and stories (like the Mt. Sumeru cosmology and its six worlds of rebirth and the four higher worlds of enlightenment) express crucial values and insights about the human condition. In fact, these insights and their corresponding values transcend the merely human or anthropomorphic and can contribute to a more existential engagement not only with the transrational depths of our being, but also with the greater cosmos of which we are a part. In this effort to go beyond the merely rational and its dichotomies, categories, and analytical parts mentality to a more wholistic (even holographic) view of the interdependent and transrational nature of life I believe that I am upholding a vision that goes beyond the merely modern to what might as well be called the post-modern.

It seems to me that Buddhism's view of the inevitability of dukkha (unsatisfactoriness) as long as greed, anger, and ignorance within the heart/mind have not been rooted out is itself a critique of the modern assumptions of rational progress that post-modernism mocks with its cynical black humor. Of course, the Buddhist critique is not cynical or mean-spirited though it can sometimes be funny or humorous. Buddhism, above all, tries to make its criticism constructive and practical.

Buddhism has also been a syncretic type of teaching from the beginning, but in a critical way. From the start, the Buddha utilized the Vedic cosmology he grew up in. The Buddha, in fact, affirmed that cosmology but also critiqued those parts of it that contradicted his view of how things really are. As Buddhism traveled to China, Korea, Japan, and SE Asia, and then Tibet, it likewise assimilated elements of the local myths and worldview. So Buddhism can be quite at home with the "post-modern" way of combining elements from different cultures and genres as Buddhism has been doing it for 2,500 years. Still, it must not be forgotten that the best Buddhist teachers have always brought a certain amount of discernment and creativity to this process.

As mentioned above, post-modernism has been accused of being anti-intellectual or even outright irrational. Buddhism has also been accused of this. Actually, some of its more misguided and misinformed adherents have proudly claimed that Buddhism is anti-intellectual and/or irrational. But this is a mistake. Buddhism can be very rational. The discourses in the Pali Canon are more often than not dialogues that utilize logic and reason. Tibetan Budhism has even preserved a tradition of Buddhist logic that developed in India. The Abhidharma is itself an attempt at a rational and even empirical system of studying the human mind. There is nothing inherently anti-intellectual or irrational about Buddhism. If anything, it is a much more rational and empirical system of thought and practice than any other religion in the world. Unfortunately certain strains of Buddhism, esp. East Asian strains, have downplayed or even denied this.

One thing that can be said, though, is that Buddhism is transrational. It does not confine itself to logic or reason, but always appeals to actual experience gained in spiritual cultivation. Buddhism recognizes that words and grammar can only do so much. They can reveal, but they also can conceal or mislead. Again and again, Buddhism uses words to deconstruct the trap of words and the trap of mere theory or conceptuality to point to the transformation of actual practice and experience, to a direct engagement with things as they are. In this, I think Buddhism avoids irrationality but also breaks free of the merely rational to take in the big picture that is transrational. Here in the transrational is, perhaps, a more construtive and wholesome meeting ground between the best of Buddhism and post-modernism.

In the end, I don't think I will go around using the term "Post Modern Buddhism" as the term is too ambiguous. At the same time, I do want to convey that I think the best approach to Buddhism must go beyond the merely rational scientific, anthropomorphic, and naively optimistic approach associated with modernity. Thus, this essay.

What to call the approach I take?

Probably best to just call it my current understanding and experience of Buddhism (whatever that may be) and leave it at that.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

Posted by Ryuei at August 30, 2007 12:53 PM