[Buddha-l] Western Buddhism and devotion

[Bob Zeuschner]

Hi Michel --
I can hardly recognize my original remarks in your reaction, but let me 
clarify.

Michel Clasquin-Johnson wrote:
> AT LEAST four, yes, but you are taking the traditional classification 
> scheme of Advaita Hinduism (by no means the only form of Hinduism there 
> is) as canonical. Contemporary scholars have put a little further 
> thought into the matter.

I did not claim the four I listed as exhaustive ("at least four"), and I 
am well aware of the other "ways of being religious" that you mention, 
but didn't use them in my brief remarks discussing my own Western 
American attitude toward Buddhism. I most certainly do not take Advaita 
as "canonical," just a nice and convenient starting place.

> 
> Now it is easy for us eggheads on Buddha-L to claim that, for instance, 
> we have no truck with "Creation of Community through Sacred Symbols". Oh 
> yeah? How do you feel about someone urinating on the flag of your 
> country? You might not be driven to homicidal rage by it, but as soon as 
> you feel, "Well, that is really not done", you are participating in 
> "Creation of Community through Sacred Symbols". In fact, even if you 
> applaud such an action, you are participating in it: You simply respond 
> to a different set of symbols that work for a different community.

If I approve, or disapprove, I participate. In fact, that means that 
unless I am neutral, I participate in lots of things -- and the 
resulting category is simply so broad as to be virtually meaningless. 
Most of the examples you provide are sociological, but hardly exclusive 
to any religion, hardly essential to religion.

> 
> There is simply no way that any human being can claim to be 100% 
> rational all the time. Well, Lt Commander Data, maybe, but he's an 
> android and doesn't count.

Of course not, but since I did not even imply such a remark, it doesn't 
apply (it is a "straw man"). I've been playing acoustic blues guitar for 
40 years, and never once thought it was rational. It is very emotional 
and satisfying.

As I did observe, I find no trace of devotion in my makeup (so I don't 
teach that to my children), I find little interest in ritual in my 
makeup (so I don't teach that to my children), I find some interest in 
meditation, and when it comes to my take on Buddhist RELIGION, the only 
way that I can approach it is via the intellect and rationality. There 
are dozens of ways of being religious, mine is "grand tradition," 
although I most certainly teach all the various ways of being religious 
to my students.


> 
> [obligatory Buddhist content] Contrary to popular opinion, ritual and 
> devotion in Buddhism was hardly a Mahayana invention. The Kitagirisutta 
> (MN 70) to name just one, speaks of people being freed by faith. [end of 
> obligatory Buddhist content]

Much of early Buddhism is devotional. Those aspects have little appeal 
for me, personally, although I do teach it.


> On 16 Nov 2007, at 10:13 AM, Bob Zeuschner wrote:
> 
>> I can't speak for others, but there are supposed to be at least four 
>> ways of being religious.
>> One is devotion to deities. I can't find an ounce of _bhakti_ anywhere 
>> in my own nature; if anything, I push it away (not good for a Buddhist).
>> Another way to be religious is to enjoy religious rituals. I find them 
>> uninteresting and of little personal value.
>> Another way is meditative; I find some value in _dhyana_.
>> Another way is to use one's rational mind, one's ability to think 
>> carefully and critically, which is how I understand _jnana_ or 
>> _prajna_, and seems to be the only way that I can participate in 
>> religion.
>> For this reason, I find myself unable to inculcate devotional or 
>> ritual Buddhism in my children, for personally I find myself unable to 
>> relate to these other _marga_.
>> Bob
>> Dept. of Philosophy