Real Life with Ryuei

Paradigm Shifts in Buddhism?

In order to overcome my fear, loathing, and general ignorance of Islam, I recently picked up Hans Kung's recent tome called Islam: Past, Present, and Future. I highly recommend the book - Islam is a lot more complex and nuanced than I had thought. It is apparently the third in a trilogy of books about Western religion, the first two being about Christianity and Judaism.

In the book, Kung divides each of these religions up into six paradigms from the time of their founding to the present day. On p. 144 Kung says: "I follow Thomas S. Kuhn in understanding a paradigm as 'an entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by the members of a given community.'" In the course of the book, Kung shows how former paradigms that were appropriate to earlier periods linger on, either casting a shadow over later periods or even being clung to long past their usefulness to the point of becoming very dysfunctional and even degrading (Kung doesn't put it quite this bluntly - he is much too much the diplomatic interfaith theologian).

This is very interesting, so I have started wondering whether it could be applied to Buddhism as well. In thinking this over, I realized that I had already divided Buddhism up into three paradigms (though I didn't think of it that way) in an article I wrote a long time ago for a journal published by the Won Buddhists. In the article I explored the differences between what I saw as a Hinayana focus on renunciation, a Mahayana orientation on compassion, and a New Religions focus on gratitude.

Now I am not writing as a scholar here, I am just thinking out loud, but I think I could also find five or six paradigms in the history of Buddhism:

1. The paradigm of the historical Shakyamuni Buddha's original teachings and original movement of wandering mendicant practitioners. This would predate any of the written canons that we have now - including the Pali Canon and the Agamas.

2. The paradigm of the established monasteries and their more scholastic orientation as typified by the so-called 18 schools of sectarian Buddhism in India. Theravadin Buddhism came out of this period. This is not to infer, however, that Theravada does not also have an international potential (as per the next paradigm) but I think in its pure Theravadin form it would be extremely difficult for it to adapt outside of S and SE Asia.

3. The paradigm of an international Buddhism as typified by the Mahayana movements in Central Asia, East Asia, and (much later) Tibet. I am thinking that this was really established at the time when these Mahayana communities outside India developed their own unique system of more or less self-supportive monasteries - for instance those governed by the Pure Rules of Huai Hai attributed to Baizhang Huaihai. I think that the monastic orders of Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese Buddhism are the present day survivals of these.

4. The paradigm of Buddhism as an established state religion. This was the case in Tibet and in Japan (esp. during the Tokugawa period). The vestiges of this can be seen in the traditional schools of Japanese Buddhism which relied on the danka or "parish" system but are now struggling to find their place in a world where church and state are seperated and their old functions are no longer viewed as necessary. The Gelukpas, in the meantime, maintain a government in exile, but no longer have a country to rule over and they too have been struggling to maintain themselves in a world that no longer really has a place for them outside of the hobbies of wealthy cultural elites.

5. The paradigm of the East Asian New Religions wherein charismatic figures have attempted with varying degrees of success to establish more universal and progressive forms of Buddhism. SGI is a partial example because from their founding in the 50's (as more than an educational society) until 1991 they were ostensibly a lay group connected to Nichiren Shoshu (a particularly authoritarian and aberrant form of Buddhism from the previous paradigm). Better examples, and ones that I think will be more successful in the long run, would be Rissho Kosei Kai and Won Buddhism.

In looking over these paradigm I find that each made important, in fact indispensable, contributions to world culture. At the same time, each of them has dysfunctional elements and/or elements that inhibit or even prevent their universality as well as many anachronistic elements (like a pre-scientific cosmology and patriarchal views about women).

Here is what I would like to adapt and to leave behind from each:

1. The first paradigm is difficult because we can't really get at it except through textual scholarship and archeology focusing on evidence from the second paradigm. And yet, it is important to realize that the true life of Buddhism is not found in that evidence but in the primary and direct awakening of Shakyamuni Buddha, the human being. And that possibly the actual historical Buddha's teaching was not as unilaterally monastic oriented and male chauvanistic as the second paradigm tried to make him out to be. The actual Buddha of history was probably not someone as focused on scholarly analysis and the laying down of hundreds of rules as the Buddha of the Tripitika. He may have been a lot more open to various skillful methods and diverse applications for many different kinds of people in order to lead them all to the same experience he had. This is what should be adapted - and the third or Mahayana paradigm may have been an expression and adaptation of this current that may very well have run alongside the second paradigm without being given an expression in the Pali Canon or Agamas. At the same time, we cannot and do not want to simply reproduce a Buddhism for 4th century BCE India as that world does not exist anymore. Plus there is not really anything to go on aside from guesswork and the systematized teachings of the second paradigm.

2. The second paradigm has preserved for us in the Pali Canon and the Agamas what is probably a fairly reliable (though perhaps filtered and biased) record of what the historical Buddha actually said and did. As such, it is a very human and practical, though rigorous, teaching that comes through. It is not entirely without supernatural elements and metaphysics, but does not rely on them. And its methods, such as mindfulness of the breath leading ultimately to liberation and awakening are such that anyone can put them into practice without having to buy into any belief system or special way of life and see for themselves whether they are effective methods or not. The modern Vipassana movement and teachings about mindfulness and the cultivation of loving-kindness are rooted but not stuck in this paradigm. The downside is that this paradigm insists upon a very strict form of monasticism that is adaptable only with difficulty and I suspect a lot of fudging to modern life, and particularly in non-Buddhist cultures and climates outside the subtropics. It also has a tendency to become overly scholastic and legalistic and has many patriarchal and even chauvanistic elements to it.

3. The third paradigm is where one finds the Mahayana innovations and flexibility that allowed Buddhism to cross over the Himalayas and spread throughout the Silk Road into Central Asia, East Asia, SE Asia, and ultimately to Tibet. It's emphasis on the bodhisattva ideal, the value of compassion in conjunction with wisdom, the use of skillful means, its rapprochement with the humanistic and family oriented values of Confucianism, and the self-sufficiency of the monastics (as opposed to relying totally on begging), and finally the creative synthesis of doctrine and practice among the East Asian Buddhist schools and later the Tibetan schools has provided models of Buddhist teaching and practice that people to this day find very inspirational and meaningful. The downside is that skillful means often got carried too far - to the point of amorality and antinomianism, the self-sufficient Sangha actually fattened itself with landed estates and political titles, and the doctrines and practices sometimes got so complex and demanding that only the elite could even think of engaging in them, other times the practices and doctrines got stripped down to the point where they were no longer truly challenging people to actual transformation but rather became tools for securing the individual or group ego. Many Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese temples harken back to this paradigm - though many times they have also been effected by reformers and progressives and so could be viewed as part of the fifth paradigm. I am thinking in particular of the Fo Guan Sha from Taiwan here. Whereas the City of Ten Thousand Buddhas would be a purer form of this paradigm (or at least that is my impression).

4. I don't actually have many positive feelings for this paradigm. I basically see it as a period of corruption, complasence, and stagnation. Though I suppose that these state forms of Buddhism in Japan and Tibet (in China, Korea, and Vietname the earlier paradigm was simply suppressed by a resurgent Neo-Confucianism). I guess it can be said that at least they preserved the traditions and teachings they had inherited from the earlier paradigm and remained engaged in promoting law and order and various cultural arts. So for instance, the traditional Japanese schools may be viewed quite positively as repositories of the great legacies of Buddhism at the height of its power and influence. There is much to learn from these schools, and many sincere, dedicated, learned, and deeply spiritual practitioners in these schools who are striving to pass on this legacy in a way that will meet the needs of present day people.

5. I have a lot of positive feelings for this paradigm but also there are many things to criticize (and ultimately I opted to join and become a minister in a more progressive version of a traditional school from the previous paradigm). Positively the New Religions have shown how to streamline and adapt the older traditions so that anyone and everyone can practice Buddhism as part of daily life. Many of the New Religions focus on gratitude, ethics, and engendering more positive relationships with one's family and society as opposed to simply focusing on renuciation, liberation, or rebirth in a pure land. In many ways, I think their adaptations of the older teachings and methods in a humanistic and egalitarian fashion for modern people is the hope for Buddhism's continued relevance in the modern world. The downside is that these groups are often too centrally controlled, too focused on a charismatic personality or the founders successors, they have too strong of a corporate ego, and all too often they eschew a deeper understanding of the Buddha Dharma for the more simplistic and accessible teachings of their founders. In some cases they can not even be regarded as maintaining a primary fidelity to the Buddha Dharma taught by Shakyamuni Buddha as they regard their leader(s) as trumping the authority and relevance of Shakyamuni Buddha and the teachings in the sutras.

My personal hope is that the traditional schools and the New Religions will both learn from each other so that the traditional schools will become more humanistic and progressive and the New Religions will deepen their understanding of the Dharma and fidelity to the original impetus of Shakyamuni Buddha's awakening, to the original practical teachings of the early canon, the universalizing and compassionate spirit of the Mahayana.

While I personally hope that the spirit of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo will be widely shared by all (even by non-Buddhists) I also think that it is positive and healthy for there to be so many different traditions, teachings, and approaches, as they all have something to contribute, and in many ways can act as corrective for each other if they are able to maintain a spirit of dialogue, mutual respect, and deep spiritual friendship that can transcend differences in views and methods.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

Posted by Ryuei at April 15, 2008 03:46 PM