I’m curious to know what you Buddhists out there think of cultural critic Slavoj Zizek’s take on Buddhism and Capitalism…? He seems to be suggesting that Buddhism has nothing to offer in terms of dealing with the problems of imperialist/capitalist expansion — that Buddhism (especially “Western Buddhism,” which he equates with “New Age”) because of its “distancing” effect offers no practical engagement with the world on a material basis.
“The only “critical” lesson to be drawn from Buddhism’s perspective on virtual capitalism is that one should be aware that we are dealing with a mere theater of shadows, with no substantial existence. Thus we need not fully engage ourselves in the capitalist game, but play it with an inner distance. Virtual capitalism could thus act as a first step toward “liberation.” “
So often when some people are critical of Buddhism, they tend to focus on one aspect, like “distancing” or “no self,” from within a purely Western mindset, without attempting to understand the practice from within (practice), or from within the context of a language like Pali and how Buddhist concepts are transliterated to English. Zizek might do well to read Ajahn Punnadhammo’s post on Bhikku Bodhi’s Challenge.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Due to the scholarly blunders of the past (just look at Weber’s characterization of Buddhism), Buddhism is characterized as a purely “other-worldly” religion, with the sole and solitary goal being complete and utter “extinction,” even “annihilation of the self.” Buddhist studies has come a long way since then, but these misconceptions still persist amongst people who haven’t studied Buddhist sources but nevertheless make pronouncements about what Buddhism is all about (thus, the importance of citing your sources whenever you make a claim like “Buddhism teaches that…”).
The Theravada school of Buddhism, for instance, gives clear instructions to laypeople about what kinds of professions are in line with the morality and ethics taught by the Buddha (the list is given at AN 5.177) as well as how business should be conducted (e.g. at AN 4.62; AN 5.41; AN 8.54). How “other-worldly” is that?
Thanks, Lotus. Sorry for taking awhile to respond. Well, upon re-reading Zizek’s piece, I realize that he was especially targeting the Western, “newage” version of Buddhism, which (he’s right in that sense) has in fact co-opted what might be viewed as a Buddhist aesthetic into a capitalist mindset. It brings up the question of what CAN be co-opted from Buddhism for the purposes of capitalist exploitation? A lot, perhaps (aesthetics, ritual, the external aspects of meditative form, and even text) — but, I think, not the core teaching — which can only be reached by actual practice. And the practice transforms you.
Still, acting on what he sees of newage buddhism, he’s also fallen into the trap of not looking far enough into the teachings to understand their full context and import.
I live in the Pioneer Valley, In Western Massachusetts. There seems to be a scourge of people looking for “alternative” ways of living because they don’t want to be accused of being mainstream. They’re obsessed with new age stuff. They’re orientalists, they’re neo-colonialists, they’re elitists, and definitely bourgeois capitalists! They’re just classic self absorbed Massholes.I’ve known Buddhists and Hindus from Asia, and they’re nothing like these people at all! Well, just like other people who abuse religion (like terrorists, and other right wing American politicians) i refuse to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I don’t think the problem is buddhism, it’s American capitalism. If buddhism was so anti-Marxist, why would so many southeast asian countries embrace socialism so well?
Of course, there must be genuine people out there who feel a calling to practice buddhism as a way of life. Some people are born gay, some people are meant to be marxists, and I’m sure a lot of people feel a calling to religion (or lack thereof) for intuitive and mysterious reasons all the time. Such is life.
I mean, Kripalu, the yoga retreat center in the Berkshires, is a money making enterprise that made 27 million dollars in 2008, and pays their top employees 6 figure salaries. Why do they deserve to be considered a non profit spiritual retreat? I don’t think they’re as bad as AIG, but as providers of Yogic enlightenment, how do the top officers rationalize giving themselves obscene pay raises?
I found an intersting link here:
http://www.mtfreethinkers.org/people/justin/buddhis_vs_marxism_in_the_west.html
also, as a side note, generalizations in themselves might be OK to explain phenomenons, but if what you all say is true and Zizek passes a sweeping judgement on bhuddists in general (a judgment that can only accurately define a few million people, but not everyone), he may be sacrificing the ability for marxists to make alliances with down to earth buddhists just because Zizek wanted to blow off some steam. We all want to vent, but should make sure that our tirades are constructive and promote a more harmonic world.
Buddhism is like capitalism a pretend “do good” doctrine,
enlightenment is revolutionary by definition.
May be we can start with the right view and right intention to transform capitalism by addressing the root of how this entire system developed with wrong view of capital particularly man-made financial capital.
peace
Search my blog on “Deep Conscious Capitalism”
http://www.google.com
The “right” view/attention (compassion/collaboration!) is neurologically NATURAL in humans, not a “aim”.
NOT something to be “trained too”. In the moment a clergy exist who pretends to “better”humans, in exactly that moment, sin/guilt gets instructed into the human and the wish to compensate with pride an goods(second hand satisfactions!) starts.
Capitalism is a result of all divisions inside the human distancing him from himself and his senses making sense.
Not only since Calvinism,the historical moment described as start of “modern capitalism”, not only since the wrong “Smith” theorem.
Capitalism is the neurotic outcome of moral concepts by definition.
(god shows his love to the “worthily”through wealth).
Each diminished humiliated “under”human seeks unnecessary issues to “be someone”.THAT is the trouble.
SELF ACCEPTANCE is the key to awareness and the end of capitalism.NOT BETTERING!
first of all, its a western misconception that buddhism is somehow a peaceful alternative to western religion. what about the fighting in southeast asia led by buddhists? a western buddhist would typically say “well, those arent the REAL buddhists, we preach peace and love and harmony, etcetera..” however couldnt the same be said about any western religion currently or previously involved in conflict? what about japanese zen buddhists made suicide bombers? what about the incorporation of zen buddhism even into western military training, in order for the soldier to “eliminate his self” and do away with any subjective assessment of what is actually happening in the act of war, to distance himself from the violence?
i think the quote in the original post is one of his vaguest in confronting this issue, theres so much more. i think of the tibetans, who, instead of confronting or protesting their exile, sheepishly retreated. overall, once we accept this yin-yang sort of philosophy, where good and bad are really the same thing, how do we pay the necessary attention to evil? what would buddhists do, if confronted, with something like the holocaust? would they would retreat into themselves, by accepting it as part of some “natural order”?
what room is there, in buddhism, for something as beautiful as revolution?
what buddhist has ever, publicly, confronted injustice by providing justice?
It has been several years since I wrote this post on Zizek and Capitalism. Since then, my view has shifted, and I have begun to see Buddhist religion as something that has attached itself to Siddartha Gotama’s basic teachings, and has gone the way of all religion — that is, to become a culturally inflected archival source for the teachings, but also a bureaucratic and at times oppressive vessel for culture, the arts, hierarchy, and mysticism.
I still see Gotama’s teachings as valuable, but they have to be accompanied by an ethical framework (which he himself has given us), and, in the context of modern life, a course of action. That action may range from non-violence as we conceive it (for example, OWS’s non-violent stance toward democratic change) to all-out revolution–although, personally, I am as suspicious of “revolution” as any other movement, because, while it provides a space of flux for radical change (for, say, the positive), it also provides space for tremendous violence and destruction.
It’s up to each individual to decide which course of action to choose for the context, and what is ethically right. We can no longer rest on rigid belief as passed down by the disciples and curators of religious doctrine. Civilization is in great flux at this time, and the teachings have to be addressed with as much awareness as possible, and applied to real world issues.