01.02.12

Buddhism as a ‘modernity’

Posted in General at 2:39 pm by nemo

Richard comment on buddhism

Richard said,
January 1, 2012 at 1:45 pm · Buddhism, whatever its liabilities when it’s left freely to evolve in historical contexts, when it’s working rightly and understood rightly, has actually delivered the goods as a redemptive vehicle (in an ultimate sense); I don’t get the feeling that I can say the same about contemporary science or anything else.

I recall Rajneesh (who wasn’t a buddhist, though he did speak of neo-buddhism) saying as much: his admiration for Gautama’s unique success in bringing enlightenment to many thousands. (Note that ‘thousands’ is still not that many, over two millennia. We have no solid figures)
There is a problem with the coming of Mahayana here, and Tibet is a problem case. Rajneesh lamented that the last enlightened Tibetan was Milarepa. So what’s going on here.

Richard pits buddhism against science, but to me the issue is slightly different. I am not a buddhist, even as I have given an immense amount of space here to several buddhists, starting with James of a few years ago.
I adopt the views of modernity, and its secular context. But there is not reason whatsover that buddhism can’t be a part of secular modernity, a point that the generation of Schopenhauer, at the high tide of the enlightenment period, made clear in their discovery of the Indian texts. However, I have suggested that in a ‘new age’ of world history, buddhism will move beyond its Axial Age moorings to recreate itself. And, presto, we see someone like Rajneesh attempting just that. I cite that figure because he is not a standard Indian New Age guru, dominated by Hindusim, which is not an appropriate legacy for the West, with its confusing baggage of issues that need an airing, and a challenge (like the laws of caste, and the code of Manu, and the whole nine yards). Buddhism was created as a streamlined recreation of primordail Jainism, and served a first stage of globalization. It is therefore an aspect of modernity, without question. And, as Richard senses, bad science is going to be unable to deal with it, or with its legacy. That isn’t really science at all.
I think we need to be careful then of anti-science, even as we see with some sadness the way that the scientism cult is making anti-science stronger and stronger: witness the tone of Richard’s post.

Permalink