|
by Skinny
A good way of
determining whether pernicious authoritarianism exists - as opposed to
Buddha's claims of knowledge or practical prescriptions for getting to
greater happiness, let's say - might be to check to see whether the
authoritarian means are actually getting in the way of the end:
"transmitting fundamental understandings of truth".
I can suggest a
couple tests for this:
1) How much detritus
has been swept up into the tradition that's now "the authorized version"?
For example, if whole other Gods, techniques and religious systems that
never show up in the most authentic dialogues of Buddha are now coming
along for the ride, perhaps including Gods that are antithetical to
peaceful old Buddha, that's a pretty big clue right there.
Authoritarianism for it's own sake usually wanders with time from the
original knowledge, forgetting some things (usually anti-authoritarian or
skeptical sentiments) and adding a whole lot, often seemingly randomly.
The cause for this is simple - authoritarianism isn't about throwing
things away, but preserving everything, and it adds the successive
eccentric teachings of many leaders, as well as the misunderstandings,
dreams, "visions" and delusions of many followers. Authoritarian religions
tend either to stick extremely rigidly to one text (not to mention any
names), or to become very complex.
I don't mean to
suggest that innovation shouldn't be possible in religion - but it's worth
noting that authoritarianism often corrupts and then buries in junk what
it purports to be carrying forward - while accumulating the strangest
barnacles. Innovations should be sparing and well-justified, not manifold,
ill-organized and unexplained.
In other words,
pernicious authoritarian systems generally have very poor garbage
collection. So beware of ornate beliefs - Buddha had none.
2) If questions
can't be asked, or aren't carefully answered. Authority answers questions
fully - it actually believes that's its job, that that's what it means be
an Authority. Authoritarianism ignores or punishes sharp questions and
tries to prevent others from answering them as well. True, Buddha did
refuse some questions, as being outside his expertise or interest, but he
carefully answered skepticism and never insulted an honest inquiry whether
it stemmed from knowledge, ignorance or foolishness.
In other words,
pernicious authoritarianism doesn't listen - often not even long enough to
find out enough about the culture and people it is addressing to state
it's own message accurately, much less long enough to find out what those
addressed know or have learned, or what they are ready to learn next.
3) Are the original
principles applied to the Authorities themselves or do they regard
themselves as above such consistency? If Buddha was enlightened without
special ingredient X, do the authorities nonetheless insist on it now? Are
they honest? Uninterested in material things? Practical in their spriitual
goals? Do they ask things Buddha didn't and wouldn't ask of his followers,
and is there a suggested retail price for what they have to give? Hint: in
no place in any sutra does Buddha let slip a suggested retail price.
In other words, is
knowledge the real authority, or are the authorities themselves usurping
that role?
4) Secrecy. Yes,
there can be good reasons not to discuss (and to burn down with the
intellect) bridges a student hasn't yet gotten near; but remember that
pernicious Authorities are always secretive to one extent or another,
because it makes their job easier. Buddha had no secret teachings and
thought it important to point this out, although it's fair to suggest that
he did explain the same things differently to different people.
5) (The often
unspoken or unconscious) Belief in a delusion-free zone. Whatever the
color of curtains, or kind of incense, or rhythm of the chant; there are
no delusion-free zones.
In summary, if your
teacher challenges you to think again, great. If your teacher insists you
not think, new teacher. For only free people can become realized - it's
little use to peer into the soul of the person in front of you (to quote
Woody Allen) or to learn how to leap over your Guru's obstacles (you may
just be polishing them with your butt instead). Since Buddhism is little
more than freeing ourselves from Authority within that swears to the
reality of objects, self, permanence and so forth, it's little use (but
greatly tempting!) to simply switch to authoritarianism outside the self
and keep on goosestepping.
When Buddha lifts up
a flower, you need to be able to smile, even though no-one else in the
crowd does.
Return to Table of Contents
|