When I had this entry almost written, I went to research my links online. I turned up a doozy of a web site, called Authoritarianism in Buddhism. It's an index with links to essays about abuses in Buddhist communities, thoughtful critiques of Buddhism, and some side-splitting parodies of the tradition.

About Morgan, who in his May 12 entry called my meditation practice "self-centered," in terms of the Buddhist "no self" ideal, I clearly cannot match his erudition. If Morgan says Buddhist teaching is slanted against Western adaptations of "meditation," such as my own, I can only take him at his word. Probably, it's the Buddhist "no self" teachings themselves I have difficulty with, not so much their interpretation by Morgan. But Morgan, having made this comparison, certainly deserves credit for bringing matters to a head, or, if you look at it that way, "letting the cat out the bag."

I believe it's wrong to apply the Buddhist standard of "egolessness" to Westerners, as Morgan and others do. At best, it's misguided. At worst, it's darker than that.

In my last entry, I referred to an essay in Morgan's link by Mr. John Hite, a Buddhist. I am using Mr. Hite's piece as an example because it's convenient, though doubtless, writing of this kind abounds on the web. I compared Hite's arguments about Western "ego delusion" to the fire-and-brimstone rantings of Cotton Mather. I will now back up that comparison.

I'm indebted to Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad, authors of the 1995 book The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power, for articulating a basic standard of authoritarian ideology. I'll paraphrase this as follows: authoritarian ideology appeals to some unchallengeable notion of truth, and it instills self-mistrust in followers, justifying its control of them. Unsurprisingly, Protestant fundamentalism fits Kramer's and Alstad's standard very well, in branding those who question its narrow interpretation of scripture as "sinners." Kramer and Alstad argue, more surprisingly, that Twelve Step groups also fit the authoritarian standard, in their tendency to label those who question the Twelve-Step model as "addicts in denial." "Sinners," in the Kramer-Alstad model, need churches and clergy to "save" them; "addicts," of course, need Twelve Step groups. Thus each ideology consolidates its control of the individual.

The same thing happens in Buddhism. If Westerners are helped and encouraged in their efforts to meditate by those better steeped in meditation traditions than they, good. But if those meditators come to believe, through reading the likes of John Hite, that they are "deluded by ego," and doomed to "fail" at the golden standard of "selflessness," then who stands to benefit?
8:17:07 PM    comment []