Hagglund, as we've seen by now, spends a lot of time talking about our need to come to terms with our real finitude--we can't live on our own and we're going to die. As I've thought about Hagglund's text I've also wondered how Buddhist philosophy and practice might be complementary. I think my soft spot for Buddhism and other eastern ideas goes way back, but a seminar with self-identified Christian-Buddhist Paul Knitter really drove home the affinity, particularly when it comes to attachment. Hagglund does address Buddhism, but finally seems to sour on it. "The religious aim of Buddhism," says Hagglund, "is to release you from finite life itself," and this aim is at odds with "the ultimate purpose of a secular practice" (208). Hagglund wants us to accept, recognize, and live into the promising meaningfulness of finite life rather than escape from it, as Buddhism seems to advocate. But my experience of Buddhism via Paul Knitter didn't smack of such total abdication and I think the above video speaks, with helpful nuance, to that. Of course, Buddhism is a big tent, and Hagglund is not incorrect in his assessment of what many might consider traditional Buddhism's emphasis on liberation from reincarnation. But it's long outgrown--in varied directions--those roots. Again, this isn't intended to compete with or displace Hagglund's excellent presentation. I just hate to see him conclude that only the basic practices of mindfulness have a place in the secular journey toward accepting our finitude. Considering how ingrained the idea of permanence and eternity is, disabusing ourselves of it will take--for many of us--all the help we can get!
Sunday, March 29, 2020
Hagglund's Finitude and "Radical Acceptance" in Buddhism
Hagglund, as we've seen by now, spends a lot of time talking about our need to come to terms with our real finitude--we can't live on our own and we're going to die. As I've thought about Hagglund's text I've also wondered how Buddhist philosophy and practice might be complementary. I think my soft spot for Buddhism and other eastern ideas goes way back, but a seminar with self-identified Christian-Buddhist Paul Knitter really drove home the affinity, particularly when it comes to attachment. Hagglund does address Buddhism, but finally seems to sour on it. "The religious aim of Buddhism," says Hagglund, "is to release you from finite life itself," and this aim is at odds with "the ultimate purpose of a secular practice" (208). Hagglund wants us to accept, recognize, and live into the promising meaningfulness of finite life rather than escape from it, as Buddhism seems to advocate. But my experience of Buddhism via Paul Knitter didn't smack of such total abdication and I think the above video speaks, with helpful nuance, to that. Of course, Buddhism is a big tent, and Hagglund is not incorrect in his assessment of what many might consider traditional Buddhism's emphasis on liberation from reincarnation. But it's long outgrown--in varied directions--those roots. Again, this isn't intended to compete with or displace Hagglund's excellent presentation. I just hate to see him conclude that only the basic practices of mindfulness have a place in the secular journey toward accepting our finitude. Considering how ingrained the idea of permanence and eternity is, disabusing ourselves of it will take--for many of us--all the help we can get!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I had the same thought, when reading Hagglund's repudiation of Buddhist "detachment"... particularly in view of that form of secular Buddhism represented by Stephen Bachelor, Robert Wright and others. They don't seem to be seeking an escape from finite life, they're embracing "this life" as our one and only.
ReplyDeleteI always found it interesting how the only ones in Buddhist practice who will return to the world after achieving moksha where the Buddhas who were selfless enough to return to this world to guide others from their suffering in samsara. It is my understanding that samsara is a cycle of eternal suffering. I find pleasure in life however - probably what a Buddhist would name as my attachment. Though I often have my bad days, where I don't want to be here anymore, I know that tomorrow is a different day with different opportunities for happiness and don't understand why only those who want to release us from this realm would want to return to this world, why no one would desire simply to return to experience another life.
ReplyDeleteI had the pleasure of listening to a bodhisattva at the Tara Center in Nashville last semester for a class on Tibetan Buddhism. What I found most enlightening from him was his advice on how to live everyday life, mindfulness. I think this concept is complimentary to detachment. What he had told us is that whenever there is a situation where you lose yourself to anger or sadness or any other emotion that overrides our consciousness, it was important to stop and 're-center' to our calm and rational state, telling us it was one of the most important parts of meditation towards moksha. He told us that in order to achieve this state in everyday life it was important to practice- in meditation, in everyday situations, really any chance we get. It wasnt something that we all could naturally achieve off the bat but something that needed to be learned.
I will say that in class whenever you spoke, Jamil, Buddhist was one of the first things I thought, not that you were a part of the religion, but that you might relate to some of the teachings. ALSO! Is that you I see as the professor of Race and Religion next semester??? Congrats! Im happy for you!