Preach It, Daniel!
by Danny Fisher
Over at the Religion News Blog, the fabulous Daniel Burke comments on that New York Times article about Tibetan monks studying the hard sciences that I blogged about recently. Daniel offers some important criticisms about the piece, and, as ever, has vital things to say about the way Buddhism is covered in the mass media. In particular, I appreciated these thoughts:
- …The Times‘ whole story is based on the isn’t-it-weird-that-monks-are-studying-science factor, which, I’m sorry, is really tired. It’s particularly tired because it’s based on false assumptions about how many Buddhist monks view the world: they don’t get trapped into the science v. religion; mind v. matter dualisms. That’s a Western construction, and a pernicious one at that.
What’s odd about the story, the fish-out-of-water aspect, is that Tibetan monks who don’t usually have access to Western universities are now finding open doors. That, to me, seems more relevant and honest than trying to foist some Western intellectual baggage onto an otherwise nice story. If you’re going to do that, at least find out about the philosophy of the people you’re writing about.
Take a look at the full version of Daniel’s post here.
Mr. Fisher,
Burke's post is kinda queer for a couple reasons:
Burke writes: "Buddhists do not recognize such a distinction between mind and matter…"
Are you kidding me?
Additionally, you favorably posted: "The Times' whole story is based on the isn't-it-weird-that-monks-are-studying-science factor, which, I'm sorry, is really tired. It's particularly tired because it's based on false assumptions about how many Buddhist monks view the world: they don't get trapped into the science v. religion; mind v. matter dualisms. That's a Western construction, and a pernicious one at that. "
Rubbish. Anyone who has debated in Tibetan monasteries knows otherwise — and no amount of mythologizing the average Tibetan monk or nun will prove otherwise. Moreover,the ar ticle states that there was "initial resistance" from the scholars about the whole thing.
For someone lamenting pernicious Western constructs (see Lopez, Prisoners of Shangrila) it sounds queer to statte, generally, that "monks and nuns rely on something incredibly corporeal — meditation — rather than, say,…prayer, to deal with life."
Beyond weird, it's patently false. Further, what does it mean to juxtapose meditation and "imprecatory prayer" (as if those are the options to "deal with life"?). Ancillarily, who is it, exactly, that is engaged in "imprecatory prayer" to deal with life?
One more thing: to imply there is only apparent contradiction between "Buddhist text and natural science" sounds pretty sophomoric. There are plenty of contradictions between individual scriptures, themselves. That being so, it's kinda curious to suggest that sūtras and śastras can't contradict "natural science".
The reason Buddhism is cool is not because all its various and sundry doctrines are in perfect harmony with our contemporary understanding of the world — Hardly! Rather, Buddhism is cool because the contradictions that are there don't amount to repudiation of the dharma of its efficacy.
Sarva Mangalam.