|
Page 3 of 6
It is better not to distort things with our limited
interpretations at all, but if we have to, then at least we should be more aware
of how powerful and one-sided our interpretations can be. For example, I could
claim all kinds of things about the way that Westerners approach the study of
Eastern cultures. I could easily put forward an interpretation, one that might
seem entirely valid, that claims Western conceptual frameworks stem from a basic
attitude of arrogance in the way that they construct themselves and
others.
In almost all departments in Western universities that
allegedly teach Buddhism, the teachers usually have to hide the fact if they
happen to be Buddhists themselves. Do the mathematics teachers hide the fact
that they believe in the logic of mathematics? Western scholars need to be more
questioning about their own rigid biases that prevent them from being able to
appreciate other perspectives. I find heartbreaking the imperialist attitude
that arrogantly isolates one aspect of Eastern culture, analyzing it at a
careful distance, manipulating and sterilizing it to fit Western agendas, and
then perhaps concluding that it is now suitable for
consumption.
Another example of the hypocrisy involved with
this kind of attitude is the Western "benevolent" wish to "liberate" Eastern
women from the clutches of what is imagined to be the oppressive tyranny of a
misogynist system, resembling the Western missionaries wanting natives to adopt
Christian morals and values. In the West, amongst other things, women are
photographed naked and the pictures are published in magazines. Many other
cultures would regard this as exceedingly embarrassing, as well as extremely
exploitative and oppressive of women. So from their point of view, Western
criticism of another culture for its subjugation of women is a highly
contentious matter.
Surely no culture should claim to have the
deep appreciation and understanding necessary to produce a thorough and
justified critique of an important aspect of another's culture (especially when
the topic is as sophisticated and complex as Buddhism) without having the
humility to make the effort to accurately and deeply learn about that topic on
that culture's own terms.
Sometimes it might help Westerners
to develop more respect and appreciation for the East if they remember that 3,000
years ago, when the East was flourishing with philosophy, arts, languages and
medicine, the Western natives still didn't have the idea to brush their own
teeth! And in many cultures' perspectives, so-called Western science and
technology has not really done much besides destroying the world's resources.
Ideas such as democracy and capitalism, as well as equality and human rights,
can be seen to have failed miserably in the West, and to be nothing but new
dogmas.
I find it difficult to see the advantage of
incorporating these limited Western value systems into an approach to the
dharma. These certainly do not constitute the extraordinary realization Prince
Siddhartha attained under the Bodhi tree 2,500 years ago. The West can analyze
and criticize Tibetan culture, but I would be so thankful if they could have the
humility and respect to leave the teachings of Siddhartha alone, or at least to
study and practice them thoroughly before they set themselves up as
authorities.
|
