From “political correctness” to “identity politics” we can think of them as being pretty much ideological; moreover, designed to end injustices based on sex, race, class, and other injustices still coming onto the social radar screen. Offering what can only be described, at times, as bombast, these ideologies have not as yet risen to the level of philosophy—and are not expected to. Lacking thus philosophical precision, recriminations and wrangling become almost the norm when, for example, issues of race or gender are discussed. Frustration and overzealousness add to the problem.
Taking stock in what has been said, ideologies such as “political correctness” or “identity politics” can be defended as criticisms of various aspects of culture—not a call for its abandonment promoting, instead, anarchy. However the truth of the matter, these ideologies are, nevertheless, attempting to construct a new reality different from the older reality which they are attacking. We can see the vague outlines even now: a world of one humanity where opposition is no more in which we all coexist, peacefully, in a new, brave multicultural reality—happy like the Teletubbies.
This means also that Buddhism needs to be reformed. The spiritual elitism between those who are awakened and those who are not needs to be looked at and changed to make Buddhism more open in which all are treated as equal. To over simplify this somewhat, Buddhism has to be socially relevant to the values of multiculturalism which we need to keep in mind demands a homogenization of acute cultural differences including religious differences. The appropriateness of this vision, however, is seriously flawed. What is really being said is weak religions will be changed while those who strongly identify with their religion; who will pushback, will be allowed to practice their religion and even be accommodated. We see this already in the EU. Christianity, a weak religion, is gradually disintegrating while the stronger religion of Islam grows.
Buddhism which, like Christianity is a weak religion, has shown signs of losing its original message. Presently, it is morphing into “secular Buddhism”that is really "humanistic Buddhism" in which the transcendent has been all but expunged in which human happiness is the end. This humanistic touch also opens up Buddhism to a more dominant and powerful religion like Islam. Buddhists will, over time, give up their religion rather than stand their ground. Yes, there is real danger on the horizon for Buddhism. Things are about to get much worse.
You're arguing for the opposite solution though. Why did Christianity get so weak? Because it lost any need for monasticism by declaring the layman equal to the monk with the faith alone interpretation of salvation. If the striving of the monastic is not necessary for salvation, or if the monk's salvation is not HIGHER than a layman's salvation, then monasticism is unnecessary, leaving the religion in the hands of laymen, who (borrowing your words) "lack philosophical precision," and who will destroy the religion BY trying to make it "socially relevant to the values of multiculturalism." That's what killed Christianity. Only by strictly sticking to the view that only monastics/celibates can get to Nirvana can Buddhism survive. To layify the religion will turn it into another failed NGO like Christianity has become. In fact, in the West Buddhism has already done this. That's what you're complaining about every day on your blog. And yet the solution you are offering to the problem is the very thing that caused the problem.
Posted by: David Brainerd | June 02, 2016 at 06:04 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/31/dalai-lama-eu-taking-many-migrants-germany-cannot-become-arab-country/
Posted by: Oswald Spengler | June 02, 2016 at 12:42 PM