This book outlines the basic features of a contemporary Buddhism
that tries to be both faithful to its most important traditional teachings
and also compatible with modernity, or at least with many of the most
characteristic elements of the modern worldview. Despite the ambitious
title, the pages that follow inevitably offer a personal perspective
on some aspects of the dialogue so far. ... There is no
question of providing a new version of Buddhism that will stand the
test of time. Instead, the best that any of us can hope for is to contribute
to the ongoing conversation, in the belief that a collective wisdom is
beginning to emerge, which will be something more than the sum of
separate voices.
The main challenge to developing a modern Buddhism is the difficulty
of achieving a genuine dialogue that is not predisposed to evaluate
one side in terms of the other.
On the traditional side, for the last few generations the main concern
has naturally been to import particular schools of Asian Buddhism
and foster support for them. Such a conventional approach might be
summarized as follows: “Some adjustments need to be made, of course,
but without conceding any significant alteration in the basic teachings
and ways of practicing. That such traditions are premodern is not a
weakness but their strength, given what the modern world has become
and where it seems to be going. The prevalent Western worldview promotes
individualism and narcissism, its economic system encourages
greed, and society as a whole seems to be entranced in consumerist
addictions and fantasies. We need to revitalize this ancient wisdom
that can point us back in the right direction.”
On the other side, however, the main concern is to make Buddhism
more relevant to contemporary society by secularizing it, replacing its
Iron Age mythological roots with a worldview more compatible with
science and other modern ways of knowing. “Sure, modernity has its
problems, but we must build on the best of what it has discovered. This
includes not only hard sciences such as physics and biology but also
social sciences such as psychology and sociology. Instead of accepting
premodern beliefs that are no longer plausible today, we can also benefit
from what anthropology and archaeology, for example, have learned
about ancient ways of thinking. Only that approach can develop a
Buddhism that speaks directly to our situation today—the dis-ease of
modern people living in a globalizing world.”
Sympathizing with both perspectives is easy; walking the knifeedge
between them is more difficult. Can we employ each viewpoint
to interrogate the other, without accepting either perspective as absolute?
Such an approach can be discomforting because it is so destabilizing:
what remains of one’s own standpoint? This process invokes
the understanding of Buddhist practice discussed in part I, which
emphasizes the realization of “nondwelling mind”: a mind that does
not identify with any particular forms, including thought-forms such
as ideologies, whether religious or secular.
Although the Asian Buddhist traditions continue to fascinate many
of us, clearly we need to distinguish the essentials of the Dharma from
cultural trappings that don’t fit as well into the modern world—do
those include karma and rebirth? Yet a secularized Buddhism may
assume some of the very things that a Buddhist perspective might critique
as problematic. Does the prevalent materialist worldview of modern
science express the truth of the world we live in, or has it become
questionable—as some distinguished scientists, including Nobel laureate
physicists and biologists, now believe? Differentiating science as a
methodology from the dominant naturalistic paradigm opens the door
to new conceptions of what this world is and to a fresh understanding
of our place and role within it, which are discussed in part II.
...
This way of describing the Buddhist path and its fruit raises some
other important issues. Is the nondualist perspective developed in part I
compatible with what modern science has discovered? Or with what
contemporary science is discovering now? It seems difficult to reconcile
a spiritual path with the materialist and reductionist paradigm that
has been so successful in bending the world to our will—a worldview,
to say it again, that many scientists themselves now find problematical.
Another issue raised by this way of understanding the Buddhist path
is its social and ecological implications. “History is a race between
education and catastrophe,” according to H. G. Wells, and the race is
speeding up, on both sides. Catastrophe may not be too strong a term
for the future that has begun to unfold.
Reply With Quote