Of course, that brings up the question, what is a Buddhist? Better yet, how well does it serve us to bother with such identifications? I like all these questions although, as usual, I don't feel qualified to tell you what the answers are to them. However, I won't let this get in the way of my thinking aloud about them here, if for no other reason than that it gives me someone (myself) to disagree with tomorrow.
I have several friends who I deeply respect and admire that put most people to shame when it comes to their personal meditation practices. Like myself, most of them come from a Vipassana influenced perspective, some of them have a deep knowledge of the Buddhas teachings and yet, they don't seem the least bit interested in identifying as Buddhist. Its not a fear of the precepts or a lack of respect for the path just a general sense that the identification isn't personally necessary. I respect their choices when it comes to these matters, after-all, these are issues of faith, a deeply personal investigation if ever there was one.
There is something about their lack of identification that I even envy, it seems so bold, so free, so... "enlightened". Although I secretly wish to evolve to this higher state of non-dual identification, I fear I haven't made a great deal of progress lately. My enrollment in a Buddhist founded university has thrust me into the position of having to identify my sectarian allegiances on a daily basis. Instructors, monastics, students, they all seem to want to know what sect I identify with and just how much I identify with it.
That I'm Buddhist is a pretty safe assumption (since I'm studying Buddhist Chaplaincy) but never in my life have I felt the burden of labels so keenly. I'm not complaining, I've been offered a lot to think about in terms of the construction of identity and its usefulness since I've immersed myself in the program. I have concluded that this stage of identification (with a capital I) is just that, a stage. One that serves a certain useful function for a particular time and place. As personal as my faith might have once been, I'm officially "out", Its hard to avoid people identifying you according to your religious beliefs when you're moving towards an officially endorsed title of Chaplain!
As for wearing the mantle of Buddhist, I'm very Ok with that and have been for some time. I think there are some basic tenets of the belief system that one is required to accept in order to claim Buddhism as a faith and I do. I question some of the recent Western trends of identifying oneself as "Buddhist and fill in the blank", as if we were discussing a pleasant side dish to be added to a main course. This is strikes me as particularly problematic when we discuss the attempt to wed Buddhism and any of the theistic religions. As a whole, this seems like a rather vulgar display of disrespect to both faiths.
I have my own opinions about the nature of change and growth that is occurring as the Dhamma flows to the West. Any time a set belief system is confronted with change, there generally seems to be a period of contraction on the part of the establishment concurrently there will be those who feel the need to protect the old modes of identifying. I think Buddhism might be going through just such a period, Im not saying its an original perspective but it is based on personal observations. The history of Buddhism has been marked by numerous inevitable periods of reformation, adaption and modification. Perhaps my non-Buddhist Buddhist friends represent the latest trend in a historic saga that will lead to a shedding of old identities, or maybe they're part of a generational fad that will fade in time; either way, the view from the middle doesn't seem so terrible.
No comments:
Post a Comment