Cruel Theory - Sublime Practice: Toward a Revaluation of Buddhism

by Glenn Wallis, Tom Pepper, Matthias Steingass

'Cruel Theory - Sublime Practice' consists of three parts. Each part addresses both theoretical and practical dimensions of Buddhism. Authored individually, each part nonetheless interacts with the concerns of the others. Those concerns include the formation of an autonomous subject in the face of Buddhism's concealment of its ideological force; the possibility of a practice that thus serves as a theory or science of ideology; the reconstitution of practice as an organon of authoritative structures, including controlling social-conceptual representations; and the perception of Buddhism as the subject of a historical process. Perhaps the most salient theme running throughout the book concerns the crucial necessity of transfusing anemic contemporary Buddhist discourse with the lifeblood of rigorous, creative thought. Will Buddhism in the twenty-first century West help fashion a liberated subject? Or will it continue to be a deceptive mythos spawning subjects who are content to rest at ease in the thrall of predatory capitalism? The three parts of 'Cruel Theory - Sublime Practice' share a common to push Buddhism to the brink.

Genres: Buddhism, Philosophy

214 pages, Paperback

First published July 23, 2013

Reviews

[Frank Jude · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is fascinating. Ironically, I find more passion and deep integrity of inquiry here than in just about any contemporary buddhist book. But then, the thesis of this book makes it clear why such a situation is not at all ironic! Many -- if not most -- practitioners of buddhism write-off Wallis and the others at Speculative Non-Buddhism, often singling out what they see as an overly "aggressive" or "angry" tone which conveniently allows them to ignore this powerful critique. In fact, I'd have given the book five stars, but it is true that Wallis at times sinks into a turgid verbosity reminiscent of the fatuous "post-modernist" french philosophes. However, his essay isn't all that encumbered and his points are sharp and penetrating if one has the courage to actually engage with what he has to say.

Perhaps my favorite essay is Tom Pepper's "The Radical Buddhist Subject and the Sublime Aesthetics of Truth." It may come as a surprise that Pepper is indeed a practicing buddhist in the pure land school -- but coming from a decidedly radical social perspective. What Pepper does in his essay is bring buddhist thought into dialogue with modern western thought for the very purpose of creating an approach to practice that can produce truly radical subjects in a late-capitalist world. He acidly critiques contemporary buddhism's tendency to (despite all claims to the contrary) produce illusions of "pure absolute bliss" and individualist quietism.

Pepper shows what a real and complete acceptance of the implications of "not-self" and "dependent origination" could lead to. In order to do this, he focuses on the idea of the non-atomistic, socially constructed mind and Althusser's concept of ideology. While most contemporary practitioners seem to denigrate the very concept of "ideology" and often assert that buddhism is "non-ideological," Pepper argues that buddhism is best seen as a theory of ideology and that the truth uncovered through buddhist thought is the insight that we always live in ideology and our ideologies are produced in aesthetic practices. Going against the over-whelming fear and antipathy to thinking found in contemporary buddhism, Pepper asserts that we can come to understand the truth of buddhism only in thought -- and not in some retreat or escape into the mystical, the ineffable, or the delusion of anything that can be considered "pure experience."

In Part Two, Wallis offers his theory of "speculative non-buddhism" as a tool (he just has to say "organon," of course!) to "uncover buddhism's syntactical structure; to serve as a means of inquiry into the force of buddhist propositions; and to operate as a check on the tendency of all contemporary formulations of buddhism...toward ideological blindness." The emphasis is his, and while I tend to agree with him, I think there are at least some individual teachers who are not only not blind to ideology, but actively investigate it in order to create a better ideology.

It's important to understand that the "non" here is not "anti" though it can be. And that's the point! Without making the "decision" to buy into buddhist thinking and all it's postulates as Wallis critiques as "the principle of sufficient buddhism" (a wonderful phrase that captures something all too common in contemporary buddhism: buddhism is sufficient, it has the final and superior word to say on just about anything and everything!), it may be a real 're-valuation' of buddhism as the title suggests, or it may be a radical critique and rejection of buddhism. A true investigation does not begin with an assumed and desired end!

Here is Wallis' definition:

"Speculative non-buddhism is a way of thinking and seeing that takes as its raw material buddhism. The prefix non does not signal a negation. Buddhism, as a positive value must remain intact for non-buddhism to proceed. Non-buddhism is a thought experiment concerning precisely buddhism, but one that assumes the need to think the subject matter unbeholden to its complex system of values, premises, claims, beliefs, and so on."

Matthias Steingass' essay, "Control," is the weakest in that while he valiantly attempts a text about history, his narrative often loses focus. He is attempting to show how in buddhism's so-called "malleability" that allows it to adapt there is often an ignoring of the multitude of conditioning factors that it is exposed to. In this way, buddhism gets to write its own "history," filled with distortion and often-time outright lies. For instance, Steingass enters into his critique by quoting Robert Thurman in a long passage that begins: "Pure Consciousness is bliss" and ends with "You have a terrorist in your brain, coming out of your own instincts and culture, who is pestering you all the time."

He goes on to show the delusion or perhaps outright deception Thurman spreads when he goes on to speak of Tibet: "Why don't we have a year-round blissful vacation? It could be summer all the time... That's what Tibet was like before the Chinese invaded. SInce 1409, they were on a blissful vacation... the whole country: I mean it!" Thurman really holds out feudalistic Tibet as "the most developed society on earth.

Reading such bullshit, I find myself cringing! This coming from a professor of buddhism at one of the most prestigious universities on the east coast? From 1409 (no accident this date was chosen as it was the date Thurman's own school of buddhism took control -- violently -- of Tibetan politics with the institution of the Dali Lama) historians of Tibet paint a very different picture than the rosy one Thurman wishes to promulgate: "The rise of the Dalai Lamas, however, culminating in the foundation of the Ganden Palace, the seat of the Fifth Dalai Lama, as the government of Tibet, occurred in tandem with the emergence of sharp sectarian rivalries (Kapstein, 2006) and in 1642, the Great Fifth as he is respectfully called, achieved "the historic reunification of Tibet under a single regime after some two centuries of intermittent civil war."

So the first two centuries of Thurman's "blissful vacation" was actually a time of civil war and unrest! And even today, the political mechinations of the Dalai Lama's office continues with alleged acts of subterfuge and assassination! But this isn't the main point of Steingass' essay. His main point is that we live in a particular point in time when capitalism is able to co-opt and integrate even the most adverse forces into its own structure. Note the corporate board rooms filled with ex-hippies. Note punk becoming a style, with gold-plated razor blades being sold to the united states of consumers. Steingass' conclusion is that if buddhism is (or remains) ignorant of the ongoing commodification of the human, then it is not only useless, but dangerous as a social institution of control.

Yup! Heavy stuff to be found between these covers. And a real feast for the intellect. Which is exactly why the great majority of buddhists will never read it: after all, thinking and the intellect is what we are attempting to "go beyond," right?

[Saibhu · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are plenty books explaining how to think "in a buddhist way". This book however starts with a different goal in mind: How to think *about* Buddhism. Surprisingly, this is done rarely and/or poorly by Buddhists themselves (even if they proclaim to be critical etc.).

In order to do so three texts are presented, each one using a significantly different approach, but sharing a common basis.

In the first text Tom Pepper gives his interpretation of Buddhism as a "science of ideology" (refering to Althusser). Therefore, he refers to various strands of thought (greek philosophy, marxism, psychoanalysis) and explains why such a examination of ideology is both necessary and useful and what Buddhism can add to this (or in which cases it prevents exactly such an examination).

Following this, Glenn Wallis presents an even more abstract approach. He introduces the non-philosophy of Laruelle and develops his own speculative non-Buddhism. By doing so, he provides both a characterisation of Buddhism itself and a heuristic for the reader to think about Buddhism without being trapped into the limitations of Buddhist thinking.

The third part by Matthias Steingass gives various examples by the influence culture had on Buddhism at a certain time and place. More importantly, he also shows the consequences of the fact that Buddhism itself is blind to these influences. Of all three parts this seems to be the less abstract one.

Preceeding these three parts is an introduction explaining the agenda of the book and each individual part. Although all parts are well structured and well written, the additional description given by the introduction is very helpful for it clarifies the point the authors try to make and how all three parts interconnect. To oversimplify things, all three parts are concerned with the following: First they analyse the underlying structures determining Buddhism. Each part uses different concepts (ideology by Althusser, "decision" by Laruelle and cultural influences and evolution theory). They demonstrate how Buddhism (often) fails to acknowledge these structures and show the consequence of this failure. After presenting this critique of Buddhism and pointing out why it is relevant, they provide examples how such a "praxis" of critique could be performed in the future and what results it can yield.

I give only 4 out of 5 stars mainly because the different approaches require different previous knowledge for the reader. Therefore, it is not possible to recommend the book unconditionally. Concerning the layout I think the book would have profited from using a serif font.

Besides that I recommend the book to anyone whos interested in thinking about Buddhism.