Clark Strand's lastest volley of attack against Western Buddhism

by Tom Armstrong

Image source: Buddhist Channel

“Baby Boomer Buddhism Going Bust” is the headline at Topix, announcing the gist of Clark Strand’s latest attack against Western Buddhism in an opinion piece that appeared in the Taste section of The Wall Street Journal last Friday, and was posted online in the WSJ‘s Opinion Journal.

Titled “Buddhist Boomers: A Meditation” in its hardcopy incarnation, the article first conveys Strand’s belief, previously expressed in Tricycle, that Buddhism is on the ropes, in decline because it doesn’t have the family-friendly features of the Christian and Jewish faiths.

But Strand goes further in this new op piece. He says Western converts to Buddhism are deluded to think that Buddhist practice is free of dogma and superstition. And that in its “convert”ed state is “also free of folk tales, family and ... fun.”

Western Buddhism no fun? Is this guy cranky or what!?

And if many of us set aside what seems dogmatic or is superstitious in the ancient scrolls or premodern practices, hooray for that.

Further, in a remark staggeringly bizarre to me, Strand makes his case that Buddhism isn’t in sync with current science and -- get this -- isn’t, basically, peace loving:

In the contemporary discourse on religion, it is striking how often Buddhism is privileged over Judaism, Christianity or Islam as a scientifically based or inherently peaceful version of religion. Note that the Dalai Lama (rather than the pope) was asked to provide the inaugural address at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in 2005, even though, like Catholicism, Tibetan Buddhism includes beliefs (think reincarnation) that are anathema to medical science. Likewise, though Japanese Buddhists melted their temple bells to make bombs during World War II, the idea of Buddhism as a peace-loving religion persists as an enduring fantasy in Western people's minds. And yet, such fantasies are instructive nonetheless.

Today, when the Saffron Revolution in Burma weighs heavy on Buddhists’ minds worldwide, it is curious indeed that Strand chooses to say that Buddhism is not particularly peaceful. Certainly, there are calls for blessed peacemakers in the texts of the world’s other prominent religions, but Buddha’s teachings are remarkably peace loving and stripped of the justifications for war and violence found in the others.

It would be prideful for me to make the case for Buddhism’s myriad wondrous qualities, here. And it’s way beyond my scope to pull together an overview of Buddhism‘s relative excellence because I don’t know enough about religion, generally. But, is Strand nuts? The Old Testament has God requiring Abraham to slay his son. Jesus dies on the cross with the logic being that somehow that compensates for our sins. And let us not forget the Inquisition and the Crusades. And in Islam, Mohammad inveighs against the infidels and justifies making conversion to the faith by knifepoint.

Certainly, the record for Buddhism isn’t lily pure. War at slow boil continues in Sri Lanka between Buddhist sects. And in the highly nationalistic Japan of World War II, the Shinto-Zen blend of religion had a part in the war machine. But instances of Buddhist warmaking is very rare compared to other religions. That is just simply the case. How Strand arrives at the harsh ideas that he parades is mysterious.

As for Strand’s assessment that reincarnation is anathematic to medical science, I think he is wrong for two killer reasons: (1) Medical science doesn’t concern itself (or shouldn't concern itself ...) with reincarnation; it’s all about the physical properties of the body; and (2) He misses the point. The Dalai Lama, and most Western Buddhists, in contrast to adherents of other religions, accept corrections that may come from science to any “dogma” in our religion . That is why the Dalai Lama was an appropriate choice to address the Society for Neuroscience and the Pope wouldn’t have been.

In a statement near the end of his WSJ harangue Strand writes this:

Though some of my more devout Buddhist associates may balk at the idea, these days I have increasingly come to see Buddhism in America as an elaborate thought experiment being conducted by society at large--from the serious practitioner who meditates twice daily to the person who remarks in passing, "Well, if I had to be something, I guess I'd be a Buddhist." The object of that experiment is not to import some "authentic" version of Buddhism from Asia, as some believe, but to imagine a new model for religion altogether--one that is nondogmatic, practice-based and peaceful.

I cannot see what propels Strand to write this. Buddhism in America is not a thought experiment, as ungrounded as the swirling wind. There is a universe of texts from teachers of our time that speak with very similar dispatch to the values and traditions carried over from the root of Buddhist teachings. As much as any religion anywhere and at any time, I would aver, American Buddhism is attentive to and guided by [but not nailed to] particular and specific concepts, teachings, traditions and goalless goals. The new technology aids us in this, keeping our ducks in a row.

Certainly there are many rather-casual Buddhists in America as there are casual adherents to any religion. But I think "Well, if I had to be something, I guess I'd be a Buddhist" is neither in any way typical nor fair nor comes from anywhere other than Strand’s fertilized imagination.

Strand has established well the reputation he seeks as American Buddhism’s harshest, meanest, fact-flightiest critic. [In a 2003 article in Tricycle, Strand called American Buddhism racist. See Strand quote midway in this blog post.] What makes Strand most hurtful and harmful is his ongoing connection to Tricycle magazine where he has long been a contributing editor and a praised favorite of the magazine’s editor-in-chief, James Shaheen. Strand’s WSJ article cites his connection to Tricycle, giving the imprimatur to outsiders of him being a scholarly Buddhist heavyweight.

The last portion of a Oct. 28 article about the Dalai Lama’s visit to Canada, published in the Toronto Star [and shortly thereafter posted to The Buddhist Channel], gets commandeered by Strand’s damning views on Western Buddhism as he is treated as a knowing and reliable authority.

I think that Strand has lost objectivity regarding Buddhism and has other religious fish to fry -- his next book is called How to Believe in God (Whether You Believe in Religion or Not) [Scroll to the bottom of Morgan Road Books' current News & Events notice]. For whatever reason [Bitterness? Loss of fervor?], Clark Strand has lost the Buddhist mojo he had in the past as a Zen monk, founder of a monastery, and Buddhist writer. It is time he was relieved of the connection to Buddhism Tricycle gives him that is used as his claim of being authoritative.

Update 11/15: Both the New York Times, in "Autumn of the American Buddhist," and Tricycle, with "Graying Buddhism?", have posted opinion pieces regarding Strand's Wall Street Journal essay. Both the Times and Tricycle focus solely on the idea of Buddhism dying out in America and not other issues Strand raised.

Tags: buddhism, Western Buddhism, Clark Strand, Tricycle magazine

Buddhism and the Use of Force

10/31/07 UPDATE: An earlier version of this post included a quote from Paul Carus's 1894 book "The Gospel of Buddha" that has now been deleted.

A recent post by Army Chaplain candidate Somya Malasri to the blog Buddhist Military Sangha raises an interesting question: Can a Buddhist Join the Army? And, it raises further, related questions of what role we should expect for “force,” from the military or police, to play in society.

Many Western Buddhists are wholly non-violent, staunchly opposed to the violence the military might unleash, yet haven’t a scintilla of opposition to a competent, adequately careful police force in a free society. Policemen, like soldiers, often must use force, or violence, to achieve their ends, be it in the apprehension of suspected criminals or to deter harm coming to innocents.

Second Lieutenant Malasri cites Ven. K. Sri Damavanda [from “What Buddhist Believe,” downloadable from Buddhanet in PDF format, quoting the chapter beginning on page 385] which has the same ultimate source as the chapter “Simha’s Question Concerning Annihilation” which comes from Paul Carus’s compilation of Buddhist wisdom in a book published in 1894, called The Gospel of Buddha. [Where in the Pali canon the Simha story is, I haven’t been able to locate -- but I have little doubt it’s there, somewhere.]

Here, Buddha‘s words regarding police work in response to Simha‘s question asking whether Buddha permits punishment of the criminal:

‘He who deserves punishment must be punished. And he who is worthy of favor must be favored. Do not do injury to any living being but be just, filled with love and kindness.’ These injunctions are not contradictory because the person who is punished for his crimes will suffer his injury not through the ill will of the judge but through the evil act itself. His own acts have brought upon him the injury that the executors of the law inflict. When a magistrate punishes, he must not harbor hatred in his heart. When a murderer is put to death, he should realize that his punishment is the result of his own act.

Thus, Buddha approves the administration of law and order within a society, even speaking of the death sentence, though I don't think we should presume that he approves of that based on the text here.

But the final Buddha quote from the military chaplain’s post, surprisingly, is this: “There is no justice in war or violence. When we declare war, we justify it , when others declare war, we say, it is unjust. Then who can justify war? Man should not follow the law of the jungle to overcome human problems.”

The most-often cited quote from the suttas declaring Buddhas opposition to war comes from the Sumyatta Nikaya (The Connected Discourse of the Buddha) 42.3, “Yodhajiva Sutta: To Yodhajiva (The Warrior)”:

When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb.

Thus, a warrior goes to hell -- or is reborn into the unfortunate life of a weasel or a chicken or something.

Confusion arises in the modern day where military might isn’t an event of nations bumping heads in pursuit of territory, each having a rationalization for their cause. There are times, now, when nations are ruled by despotic men or gangsters who seek nuclear capability, restrict freedom, have no empathy for the impoverished lives of their citizens, and have the will to impose their harsh regime on a wider patch of the world or to extract payment or concessions or an agreement where there would be no contribution from outsiders to bring down their regime.

Because there are global threats, the world is effectively a small place, a One World Sangha in many respects, and the military of good nations, most often, engage in efforts that are policework (or meant as policework that can go awry) and not the warrior work of Buddha’s day and age.

Who can doubt that the world effort to intervene in East Timor turned out well? Or regret that the world didn’t do more to try to prevent the Rawandan Genocide of 1994 when the Hutu leaders effected a campaign to wipe out the Tutsis and killed an estimated 800,000 to 1,000,000 Tutsis and Hutu sympathizers? President Bill Clinton’s greatest regret as president, as stated in a Frontline interview, was that he did not send in 5,000 US peacekeepers which, he said, might have saved a half million lives.

There is no doubt that military policework is not as straightforward or easy as what is done by municipal police within a city. The military of our time must first establish a stable presence where, understandably, there is likely to be resistance to foreigners.

Who can doubt that there was a path, albeit a difficult one, that Bush might have followed, “exhausting all means to preserve the peace” that would have brought a very satisfactory outcome in Iraq, with Saddam & sons exiled or ousted in a way that was complete, yet much more peaceful, and did not leave America in a quagmire with possibilities of civil war or war breaking out on Iraq‘s border?

And now there is a situation in Burma with hundreds of monks killed and a cruel regime in place. What do we do? Is it just to leave things as they are?

Burma has been under military rule since 1962. That’s 45 years, already!

Quoting wikipedia:

In May 1990, the government held free elections for the first time in almost 30 years. The National League for Democracy (NLD), the party of Aung San Suu Kyi, won 392 out of a total 489 seats, but the election results were annulled by the SLORC [the government], which refused to step down. Led by Than Shwe since 1992, the military regime has made cease-fire agreements with most ethnic guerrilla groups. In 1992, SLORC unveiled plans to create a new constitution through the National Convention, which began 9 January 1993. To date, this military-organized National Convention has not produced a new constitution despite well over ten years of operation. In 1997, the State Law and Order Restoration Council was renamed the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC).

When will the people of Burma have the government they deserve? one that seeks to work for its citizens? And how is the establishment of a proper Burmese government going to be achieved? From petitions? From marches in streets outside Burma until interest dissipates and we all move on to worrying about Britany's latest randy bit of foolishness or a new, real crisis somewhere arises to grab our interest before its fifteen minutes of media attention passes, disappearing with nothing having been done?

Progressive Buddhists aren't beholdened to every word we suppose Buddha may have spoken, but doesn't it make sense to rescue people who are trapped in an Orwellian nightmare? Aren't we obligated to heroically take on illegitimate governments, somehow, some way? Forcefully?

UPDATE The hard reality in Burma: "The Burmese Way to Fascism," essay by Bertil Lintner, posted in the Far Eastern Economic Review.

Here, a paragraph near the end ...

"The bitter reality is that nothing is going to change as long as the military remains united and willing to gun down its own people. A younger generation of army officers, who see the need to negotiate with the pro-democracy movement, is probably the only hope. But for now, no one is aware of any “young Turks” lurking in the wings, and there are no signs of serious cracks within the ranks. But if change does come to Burma, it will in any event be because of action taken by such younger army officers, not demonstrations led by monks."

Tags: buddhism, Burma, Buddhism and War, Buddhism and the Military