Legitimacy
Saturday December 10, 2005
A question that crops up from time to time in Buddhist circles is ‘who are the real Buddhists?’ or ‘what is the real Buddhism?’ A swift trawl through various websites can come up with a wide range of claims about what real Buddhism might be, although there seems to be little in the way of consensus. For example, there are those who claim that a belief in rebirth is essential to real Buddhism (and that those who don’t believe in rebirth cannot be real Buddhists); and there are those that claim that real Buddhism has nothing to do with rebirth at all (and that those who talk about rebirth all the time are missing the point).
The concern with preserving ‘real’ Buddhism is one that often causes a great deal of division. If you look hard enough into the texts of most schools you can find more or less virulent and vituperative condemnations of other fellow-Buddhists who do things differently. And this is an issue that is even more to the fore today, when Japanese Buddhists and Tibetan Buddhists and Theravadin Buddhists are all finding themselves, happily or not and after centuries of more or less happily doing their own thing, drawn into conversations with each other, not to mention with the rabble of Western Buddhist pretenders, a rabble from which I do not exclude myself. The kind of confusions that can result are well described in this entertaining little tale from Mark Epstein’s book Thoughts Without a Thinker, concerning a debate that was run at Harvard between two leading Buddhist teachers:
The teachers, seventy-year-old Kalu Rinpoche of Tibet, a veteran of years of solitary retreat, and the Zen master Seung Sahn, the first Korean Zen master to teach in the United States, were to test each other’s understanding of the Buddha’s teachings for the benefit of the onlooking Western students. This was to be a high form of what was being called “dharma combat,” (the clashing of great minds sharpened by years of study and meditation), and we were waiting with all the anticipation that such a historic encounter deserved.
The two monks entered with swirling robes – maroon and yellow for the Tibetan, austere grey and black for the Korean – and were followed by retinues of younger monks and translators with shaven heads. They settled onto cushions in the familiar cross-legged positions, and the host made it clear that the younger Zen master was to begin. The Tibetan lama sat very still, fingering a wooden rosary (mala) with one hand while murmuring, “Om mani padme hum,” continuously under his breath.
The Zen master, who was already gaining renown for his method of hurling questions at his students until they were forced to admit their ignorance and then bellowing, “Keep that don’t know mind!” at them, reached deep inside his robes and drew out an orange. “What is this?” he demanded of the lama. “What is this?” This was a typical opening question, and we could feel him ready to pounce on whatever response he was given.
The Tibetan sat quietly fingering his mala and made no move to respond.
“What is this?” the Zen master insisted, holding the orange up to the Tibetan’s nose. Kalu Rinpoche bent very slowly to the Tibetan monk near to him who was serving as the translator, and they whispered back and forth for several minutes.
Finally the translator addressed the room: “Rinpoche says, ‘What is the matter with him? Don’t they have oranges where he comes from?’ ” The dialogue progressed no further.
The story, if nothing else, demonstrates the difficulty of discerning something real and substantial – a Buddhist essence, if you like – that can be seen as common to both traditions. Of course, this essentialism is something that the early Buddhist texts call into question, and the idea that anything has a self-nature, including Buddhism, is one of which we should be cautious. Anyway, this business of real Buddhism has reared its less-than-pretty head once more in a recent Tricycle interview, with John Daido Loori. In this interview, the interviewer refers to a koan commentary that Loori wrote in 1999. In the commentary Loori wrote that,
Buddhism is growing very rapidly in this country. It is also being co-opted by the media, the press, and the advertising companies… There are hundreds of centers throughout the country and hundreds of teachers, but very little real Buddhism, in spite of all the publicity. Serious practitioners, people who are willing to put their lives on the line, to train in a vigorous and challenging way, and to plunge into the depths of their own psyches to realize their true nature, need to see what is going on. Buddhism is really in their hands. It is in your hands.
The Tricycle interviewer cautiously praises this statement as ‘wonderfully provocative’, and asks the question ‘What is real Buddhism?’ In response, Loori says,
Essentially, I’m talking about authenticated teachers. There are very few teachers in this country who are authenticated by their teacher. There are many self-styled and self-appointed teachers. Much of what we have in North America is a self-styled Buddhism, and it’s easy to sell style when you have not come out of twenty or thirty years of training. You don’t know the difference between the baby and the bathwater…
It is perhaps true that Loori has a point. No doubt anybody – authenticated or not – should be cautious about setting up as a Buddhist teacher, because it is a weighty thing to do, something not to be undertaken lightly. And Loori is right in another respect because there is nothing to stop anyone at all calling themselves a Buddhist teacher if they want to, however little training they have had. But what I am uncertain of is this concern with authenticated teachers as either a necessary or a sufficient condition for there to be ‘real’ Buddhism, whatever that may turn out to be. Loori’s argument, broken down, seems to be as follows:
- If it has been authenticated by a teacher, it is Real Buddhism
- There are few teachers in the USA who have such authentication
- Therefore there is little real Buddhism in the USA.
The form of the argument is correct, and I’ll take Loori at his word when it comes to the second premiss – that there are few teachers in the USA who have such authentication. My problem is with the first premiss – that real Buddhism requires authentication from a teacher. It seems that for Loori, authentication is both a necessary and also a sufficient condition for ‘real Buddhism’. But this raises certain very real problems. Once can trace Loori’s own lineage back through the Japanese Buddhist teacher and Soto Zen lineage holder Harada Daiun Sogaku. Harada wrote in 1939 about the unity of Zen and warfare in the following terms:
If ordered to march: tramp tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom. The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war. (Quoted in Zen at War by Brain Victoria. 137)
This is not to damn Loori with the sins of Harada, but at the same time it is to raise questions about the true value of authentication. By Loori’s definition, given that Harada was himself an authenticated teacher, this surely must be real Buddhism; and in turn the authentication of Loori’s own Buddhism rests upon the basis of Harada’s teachings. Were I to be in this position, I would feel that I sat with rather less assurance upon my dharma-seat, because if Harada’s militarism is real Buddhism, as far as I am concerned, real Buddhism is a hindrance rather than a help when it comes to the business of living in this suffering world.
When it comes down to it, perhaps the best thing is to dispense with the chimerical myth of ‘real Buddhism’ altogether, and with the attendant mystique that surrounds ‘dharma heirs’ and ‘lineage holders’ and the like. In the end, there are just people who call themselves Buddhists, there are just the various traditions with their texts and practices, there are just the various doctrines and their many interpretations. And here we are, in the middle of all these things, trying to make sense of ourselves, of the world, of the fact of suffering, of that fact of our own fallibility and our own hopes of doing some little good before our time is finished with. Perhaps, instead of endlessly asking ‘what is the real Buddhism’, we would be better off by simply asking ‘does this text, this practice or this doctrine genuinely lead to an increase in kindness and insight, or does it tend towards the decrease of these qualities?’ – and then by acting accordingly.
#2 · Will
10 December 2005
Hey there, Jayarava (like the new name) – great to hear from you. And congratulations on your (legitimate or illegitimate!) ordination. I’m currently illegitimately doing my own thing in Buddhist terms and seeing how it goes…
Thoroughly agree with your comments. I’ll pay your blog a visit in the next couple of days.
All the best,
Will
#4 · Justin Whitaker
11 December 2005
Hi Will. I was turned on to your post by Tom over at Blogmandu. I went to an interesting lecture about a year ago that explored spiritual authenticity and Western Buddhism. The topic was the Slovenian Marxist psychologist Slavoj Žižek, who argues that Buddhism in the West abounds with escapism and repression and that we (Westerners) would be far better off simply coming to terms with our own native traditions. Pretty provocative stuff! I wrote an essay about it at my website:
http://www.mtfreethinkers.org/people/justin/buddhis_vs_marxism_in_the_west.html
Best wishes – Justin Whitaker
#5 · Bill Gardner
12 December 2005
I have taken refuge and received the five lay vows and the Bodhisattva vows from my teacher, a Kagyu lama. Being part of a lineage is deeply inspiring to me, and it doesn’t matter if the lineage is to some degree mythical.
I think, however, that Buddhists should refrain from disparaging others’ religions, including less traditional Buddhists.
#6 · Will
12 December 2005
Thanks, Justin for your link. I very much like your site. I’d heard about the Žižek stuff on Western Buddhism – in fact, now I come to think about it, I think I read a bit (in fact, again if my memory serves me right, there was only a bit to read!) – and I have a vague recollection of the fact that there seemed to be a bit of impressive point-missing going on. But I’ll hunt him down and have a look anyway.
Thanks too for your comment, Bill. Best wishes,
Will
#7 · Gareth
12 December 2005
I’m not sure I can add anything to an already excellent post, and a timely one.
Looking at posts like this, and Jeb’s post about a more formal discussion, and just talking to friends, there seems to be a real concern to find a legitimate Buddhism for the west, and for ourselves I suppose.
Perhaps what we are looking for is a community to take refuge in, rather than a tradition.
#8 · Henrique Maia
12 December 2005
Hello,
First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your blog. As far as I have read it, it’s very interesting an thought provocative.
I just came accidentely to it (if such a thing exists) when reading about Ram Bomjon.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I will continue to pay you a visit to read your texts.
#10 · hendri leonardi
11 June 2006
Dear good friends, bodhisattvas are always winning the battle at the end, what is the victory for them. When all beings become Buddhas then they will become Buddhas. Dear friends please don’t look at the method of which the great bodhisattvas use, but look at their compassionate mind/heart. Like this, we should trust the Buddha, he abandoned desires (especially sex), position, even beloved wife and son, for the sake of all, so everyone equally (slaves, friends, family, animals etc) will finally realize true liberation. Please read their personal lifes (SeungSahn and Kalu Rinpoche)
In your mind please ask an Arhat, Prayekabuddha, Buddha if the have sex desires.
Bravo to bodhisattvas, you once again destroyed the hordes of demons for the sake of releasing all Beings.
#11 · David Chapman
18 May 2008
This meme of “legitimacy” or “authenticity” is, I think, a symptom of fear of uncertainty. (I have written about this at approachingaro.org/c… .) We want guarantees from religion — but why should we believe those guarantees when they are offered? The story is that Brand X is “authentic” so it is safe to believe its assurances. But this is profoundly contrary to the Buddhist insistence on the emptiness of all phenomena.
#1 · Dh. Jayarava
10 December 2005
Hi Will,
Last time we met (at Padmaloka) I was Michael Attwood, but I was ordained this year. Stumbled on your site this week as I was setting something similar up for myself. Have been reading some of your stuff and find it thought provoking.
The question of legitimacy is an interesting one isn’t it? Your linking Loori to Harada is “wonderfully provocative” in itself. So if lineage is not the answer to legitimacy – something Sangharakshita has certainly argued – then what is? I have thought about this quite a bit in the context of ordination. The most common (outside) complaint about the WBO is that we are not legit. What constitutes a legitimate ordination? It seems to me that I feel myself to be legitimately ordained because I have faith that the men that ordained me are Going for Refuge. I feel no particular need to justify that to anyone.
I suppose if I start making myself out to be a “teacher”, or worse a “master” then it might be necessary to establish my credentials. But is a certificate from someone any guarantee of anything? Is a robe or a shaved head? Is a large following something to look for? No, in every case. Surely in the end it comes down to a personal relationship – you either have one or not. If you have it then you are in a good position to see whether someone walks the talk. Outside of this relationship is there really any need to establish legitimacy? The whole thing of lineages and legitimacy just smacks of abdicating personal responsibility for ones own life.