Comments on: Zizek’s critique of Buddhism http://milindasquestions.com/2007/08/24/zizeks-critique-of-buddhism/ a blog about meditation, Buddhism, the philosophy of mind, metaphysics, psychopharmacology, etc. Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:43:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Joe http://milindasquestions.com/2007/08/24/zizeks-critique-of-buddhism/#comment-50395 Joe Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:17:58 +0000 http://milindasquestions.com/2007/08/24/zizeks-critique-of-buddhism/#comment-50395 One thing I try to point out in my essay---I need to update it with a slightly better edited version that also includes a snip-it of new material---is that I don't think Zizek is necessarily talking about what he thinks is "THE Buddhist position." The distinction implicit in his concept of "Western Buddhism," which for some people interested in theories of how race and ethnicity function in society is problematic on a level with which I'm not that interested, is between Western Buddhism as a phenomena in and of the West and everything else he doesn't address. This is in line with his application of Lacanian psychoanalytic notions of Fantasy, the Symbolic and the Real to Hegelian ways of dealing with the difference between appearance and reality. The catchy way he formulates this is by saying he's (in these instances, at least) not interested in some reality behind illusions and appearances, but the reality in illusion itself. What this means is that we only know the world as appearance (the Kantian claim), though it is not as if this appearance does not have efficacy and real implications. What Zizek aims to do in this respect is better understand how something that is not real (appearances, illusion) nonetheless structures my on the ground way of dealing with the world. What this has to do with how he approaches Buddhism is that he's ostensibly arguing about a phenomena that has more to do with social and political conditions in the West than, and in a certain way precedes, the teachings of the Buddha and Buddhists. I think he goes about it sloppily though, and fails to maintain this critical distance between Western Buddhism and Buddhism in general, which is the bulk of what I wish to remedy in my essay. In a way, it's meant to "save" Zizek's ideas and arguments as much as the Buddha's teachings as such. One thing I try to point out in my essay—I need to update it with a slightly better edited version that also includes a snip-it of new material—is that I don’t think Zizek is necessarily talking about what he thinks is “THE Buddhist position.” The distinction implicit in his concept of “Western Buddhism,” which for some people interested in theories of how race and ethnicity function in society is problematic on a level with which I’m not that interested, is between Western Buddhism as a phenomena in and of the West and everything else he doesn’t address.

This is in line with his application of Lacanian psychoanalytic notions of Fantasy, the Symbolic and the Real to Hegelian ways of dealing with the difference between appearance and reality. The catchy way he formulates this is by saying he’s (in these instances, at least) not interested in some reality behind illusions and appearances, but the reality in illusion itself. What this means is that we only know the world as appearance (the Kantian claim), though it is not as if this appearance does not have efficacy and real implications. What Zizek aims to do in this respect is better understand how something that is not real (appearances, illusion) nonetheless structures my on the ground way of dealing with the world.

What this has to do with how he approaches Buddhism is that he’s ostensibly arguing about a phenomena that has more to do with social and political conditions in the West than, and in a certain way precedes, the teachings of the Buddha and Buddhists. I think he goes about it sloppily though, and fails to maintain this critical distance between Western Buddhism and Buddhism in general, which is the bulk of what I wish to remedy in my essay. In a way, it’s meant to “save” Zizek’s ideas and arguments as much as the Buddha’s teachings as such.

]]>