Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
There are buddhist principles, such as karma and rebirth, which go against science, which have no empirical evidence. We reject them. There are others, like mindfulness, which produce actual changes in the brain, changes which can be observed. This aspect of Buddhism can be accepted, at least tentatively, since it doesn't go against science.
Think in many many areas, science is still trying to catch up. Still a long way to go.....
@Dakini, I agree. I'm certainly not as well read on Buddhism as some here, but in the 25 or so books I have read, I haven't read anything this is remotely new-age-ish Buddhism. Maybe I just picked well and the OP picks poorly. The two sanghas I used to visit in Virginia were both very traditional Thai-Theravadan.
The OP is obsessed on this topic, particularly Batchelor. My advice to him is, if you don't like Batchelor's books, quite reading them. Write your own. Songhill seems to be signing whatever the Buddhist version is of "Onward Christian Soldiers". Trouble is, no one is at war with Buddhism.
0
BhanteLuckyAlternative lifestyle person in the South Island of New ZealandNew ZealandVeteran
And this "Modern Buddhism" is going to continue no matter what. The secular west digs it, skeptics dig it, those inclined towards techniques and technologies dig it. No point in bemoaning it, it's here. A new school of Buddhism. Just like all the schools before it, created by followers in new places, new times, new cultural environments. At least they aren't making up new suttas like some schools have done very successfully in the past!
The only thing that bothers me about this discussion is the impression that I get that if I don’t believe this or that (i.e. rebirth and karma) I am not a proper Buddhist, or simply not a Buddhist at all.
The only thing anyone can achieve with that is that I say; “Okay have it your way: I’m not a (proper) Buddhist. Are you happy now?” But me believing any irrational nonsense (no insult, just my perspective) because you think that is what (proper) Buddhists should do; that’s not going to happen.
So the way I see it the better approach is to acknowledge that there are various types of Buddhists. They have some things in common and on other subjects they hold different views. No big deal.
I would label the other approach which says there’s one true faith only and all the rest is delusion as dogmatic.
One of the great "non-modernity" Buddhist books of all time is The Message of The Buddha by K.N. Jayatilleke. He does a Buddhist book for the general public the way it should be done. Unfortunately, very few modern Buddhists have read him.
He has an entire chapter on the Buddhist doctrine of karma with great information as compared with Stephen Batchelor's modernist book, Buddhism Without Beliefs, which has zero; which, by the way, is far more popular than Jayatilleke's book (Amazon ranking: 13,612 vs 3,326,997).
The only thing that bothers me about this discussion is the impression that I get that if I don’t believe this or that (i.e. rebirth and karma) I am not a proper Buddhist, or simply not a Buddhist at all.
So have an open mind like a classical skeptic and suspend judgment. There is no need to believe that karma and rebirth are false. Who knows, in your next life you may think differently.
The OP is obsessed on this topic, particularly Batchelor. My advice to him is, if you don't like Batchelor's books, quite reading them. Write your own. Songhill seems to be signing whatever the Buddhist version is of "Onward Christian Soldiers". Trouble is, no one is at war with Buddhism.
Your motherly advice is always appreciated Vinlyn. I think my OP raises concerns about the lie of Buddhism; where most of it is heading these days which has little or nothing to do with the Buddha of the Nikayas or the Mahayana canon. Hopefully, it won't make it to where the late Joko Beck wanted it to go.
“Wisdom is to see that there is nothing to search for. If you live with a difficult person, that’s nirvana. Perfect. If you’re miserable, that’s it.”
All practice relates to the experience of here and now.
Not so for example a wrong view is Nihilism and yet when I sit down to meditate and a person who holds the wrong view of Nihilism we would do it in the same way but because of said wrong views they create an obstruction, Particularly if meditating upon more profound subjects like emptiness.
In the same way Karma and Rebirth are Interlinked which is why if people reject them as instead of having an open mind they obstruct their own practice and hence the results of such.
If you sit down to meditate holding to any view -- positive or negative -- about post-mortem rebirth or karmic influence across lives, what you call "Nihilism," or anything else, that is already a serious obstruction. So where's the problem?
Where's the problem ? The holding of wrong views that are not conducive to practice that was the point I was making in the first place.
What's the problem with not accepting the traditional line on the Buddhist cosmology, given that any ontological position is wrong view on the cushion, unless it pertains to the current moment of practice?
@fivebells, according to many streams of Buddhism meditation does not lead to enlightenment. That statement is not true entierely because you can have a cutting insight cutting at the root cause of samsara as a result of the meditation, but that is an area I am foggy on. Anyhow my teacher at sometime said that one eventually has the realization that 100000 hours of meditation won't result in enlightenment.
Also there is daily awareness in addition to sitting meditation.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
The only thing that bothers me about this discussion is the impression that I get that if I don’t believe this or that (i.e. rebirth and karma) I am not a proper Buddhist, or simply not a Buddhist at all.
The only thing anyone can achieve with that is that I say; “Okay have it your way: I’m not a (proper) Buddhist. Are you happy now?” But me believing any irrational nonsense (no insult, just my perspective) because you think that is what (proper) Buddhists should do; that’s not going to happen.
So the way I see it the better approach is to acknowledge that there are various types of Buddhists. They have some things in common and on other subjects they hold different views. No big deal.
I would label the other approach which says there’s one true faith only and all the rest is delusion as dogmatic.
In one sense I see where you're coming from but I don't understand how one can disbelieve in karma... I mean no offence it's just that I see karmic workings absolutely everywhere. I blow on a candle's flame and it goes out... That's karma.
Again, I'm not criticising your view, just trying to understand how karma is not seen.
No, of course, just sitting there like a dummy isn't going to get you anywhere. It's important to understand the causes and conditions of various mental states so that you can cultivate wholesome states of mind which lead to stability and insight. But the only beliefs worth entertaining during this process pertain to the states of mind which are arising in the moment.
No, of course, just sitting there like a dummy isn't going to get you anywhere.
But some modern forms of meditation can stress the wrong thing. Sitting like a dummy is one of them.
“When you are sitting in zazen, don’t think. Don’t use your frontal lobe” (Katagiri, Returning to Silence, p. 27).
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
No, of course, just sitting there like a dummy isn't going to get you anywhere. It's important to understand the causes and conditions of various mental states so that you can cultivate wholesome states of mind which lead to stability and insight. But the only beliefs worth entertaining during this process pertain to the states of mind which are arising in the moment.
I agree. One can also do walking meditation or even washing the dishes meditation.
If the goal is to be continually mindful then meditation should be incorporated into all of our everyday activities in my viewpoint.
In one sense I see where you're coming from but I don't understand how one can disbelieve in karma... I mean no offence it's just that I see karmic workings absolutely everywhere. I blow on a candle's flame and it goes out... That's karma.
Again, I'm not criticising your view, just trying to understand how karma is not seen.
Some people would ascribe other things to karma than this. Basically karma - in that view - is the explanation for everything that happens. Getting cancer; that’s karma. Having birth defects; that’s karma. Being intelligent and successful and healthy; that’s karma. I gladly accept any plausible explanation but I don’t like the idea of a magical explanation for everything like God’s will or the workings of karma.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
In one sense I see where you're coming from but I don't understand how one can disbelieve in karma... I mean no offence it's just that I see karmic workings absolutely everywhere. I blow on a candle's flame and it goes out... That's karma.
Again, I'm not criticising your view, just trying to understand how karma is not seen.
Some people would ascribe other things to karma than this. Basically karma - in that view - is the explanation for everything that happens. Getting cancer; that’s karma. Having birth defects; that’s karma. Being intelligent and successful and healthy; that’s karma.
This is what I mean in a sense, yes. I don't think a child is born with cancer as punishment from a past life because for one, no lesson would be learned if said past life is forgotten and secondly, who is the punisher?
If we continue after this life then it makes sense that the process would line up with cause and effect but that could mean almost anything.
I gladly accept any plausible explanation but I don’t like the idea of a magical explanation for everything like God’s will or the workings of karma.
I could give a couple of plausible explanations if I know the perameters of what you accept as plauible but that doesn't mean they'd be correct.
"God's will" I don't get either. God would have to be some kind of monster. I don't see God as the creator of all things but just the way things go in a process of discovery.
Then again if there is God, then God's will could simply be to see what happens and make the best of it.
Also in my viewpoint God would have to be an effect before it could be a cause.
Getting cancer; that’s karma. Having birth defects; that’s karma. Being intelligent and successful and healthy; that’s karma.
There are a lot of misconceptions about Buddhist karma no thanks to modernity's influence. For starters, the Buddha's notion of karma should not be confused with the Brahmanical one. The laws of karma are but a small part of the causal laws of nature, for example, physical laws (niyâma), biological laws, and psychological laws. Karmic laws pertain to moral actions and their consequences. There spiritual (dharma) laws, too. (I am using Jayatilleke's book, The Message of The Buddha for this.)
What's the problem with not accepting the traditional line on the Buddhist cosmology, given that any ontological position is wrong view on the cushion, unless it pertains to the current moment of practice?
Because it is better to keep an open mind rather than one that is closed, In General if we can let our Wrong views drop or lessen our attachment to them we experience greater benefit. During our Session our attachments will not disturb us as much because we do not grasp at our wrong views as tightly, They can easily crop up in the mind during meditation because of the association we make between Dharma practice and meditation.
Both are apparitions of Ignorance according to Buddha, Whether one rejects it out of hand or holds tightly to the negation both arise from Ignorance. Buddha's mind is clear and unobstructed capable of seeing Hidden Phenomena so when he spoke on certain subjects we can be certain that he is not in the business of deceiving others.
Our primary job is to abandon Ignorance so its wise to make sure we do things with an open mind as it is easier to make progress that way.
I agree with @Daozen that "modern Buddhism" can't be easily defined - and not everyone asking how Buddhism applies to new countries and new cultures is guilty of trying to strip down Buddhism or shirk its profound philosophy.
There is definitely, though, a danger--and I think an existing tendency--to treat Buddhism as we have treated yoga. Yoga is in many cases in the west simply a nice form of exercise and relaxation. There's nothing wrong with that, but yoga of course went much deeper than simple exercise in the past.
That's the question with anything we take into the West, though: how deep do we go? We are a culture of increasing breadth, and in many cases, decreasing depth. This trend applies not just to spiritual pursuits, but vocation, trade, art--anything at all that one can spend time at. I think there is no question that in the past, people spend more time on fewer things, and today many of us spend less time on more things.
In such an environment it is inevitable that quick, easy Buddhist paths will be explored; not all of this is "modern Buddhism," some of it is just the fate of our time; nor is all modern Buddhism striving for a quick, easy path.
Some modern approaches to Buddhism really are interested in seeing whether there is alternate imagery and tradition which supports a deep Buddhist practice; some modern approaches to Buddhism, I think, just don't want to do the hard work of delving into someone else's culture in order to get the prize.
It doesn't mean any of it is nefarious; we have a right to seek out what we think is going to be somehow "better." It's only natural. I think it might be more constructive, though, given that Buddhism has come to us intact in multiple forms (Tibetan, Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Cambodian, ...) to ask how we can deal with the fact that Buddhism comes in a cultural tapestry, rather than be so distraught and distracted over that fact.
Culture is only a wrapper; is it really any more disturbing than the other wrappers in our lives? Buddhism asks us to do things much harder than interact with another culture. It asks us to find a way to not yell back at our infuriating brother-in-law, not indulge in some of our delicious yet destructive habits, not see reality at all the way we are accustomed to, and change deep-worn habits we have had for a lifetime or multiple lifetimes.
It seems to me sometimes that asking how to "modernize Buddhism" is really asking the wrong question. Almost like asking how to "modernize an orange" because one prefers the color blue.
The thing I find somewhat ironic is that Buddhism has already adapted in significant ways to the West. Teachings are translated in to English--in fact many decades of laborious work have gone into standardizing translations, just as happened in Tibet long ago. Students don't have to prostrate or bow if they don't feel like it; somes students in my gompa sit on chairs because the floor is too hard on their joints. The teachers take a lot of questions after class, and deal with the fact that the class is always a mix of first-timers and students who've been there for decades. Options for imagery are mentioned very often in an attempt to accomodate the many types of students. It just seems to me we are already given so many options and so much flexibility in our practice as it is. For those who want a deep and serious practice, Buddhism seems to me to be very naturally adapting to the West.
It seems to me sometimes that asking how to "modernize Buddhism" is really asking the wrong question. Almost like asking how to "modernize an orange" because one prefers the color blue.
But some modern forms of meditation can stress the wrong thing. Sitting like a dummy is one of them.
“When you are sitting in zazen, don’t think. Don’t use your frontal lobe” (Katagiri, Returning to Silence, p. 27).
Katagiri Sensei was a traditional Zen teacher. I know because I used to practice at the Sangha of one of his (also Japanese) students in Missouri. Very traditional stuff.
I met Katagiri and his wife back in 1965. He was a Sotoshu guy, very traditional. But it is important to keep in mind that his book stems from Dogen who had some very quirky ideas about Buddhism, e.g., sitting is the alpha and omega of Buddhism. This is not to say that I think Soto is crap. I like both Ejo and Keizan.
“We should be Twenty First Century Buddhists, socially engaged and open to science and psychology and other religions, developing critical thinking through modern education” Dalai Lama
where did you get your 'modern buddhism' from? buddhism has hundreds of millions of adherents. if you just take a superficial look at the average buddhist, you will find they are not too different from the average christian or muslim.
as someone who is not born a buddhist, i have searched and found buddhism practised in the way buddha taught.
and if you think batchelor has the answers, think again.
Excuse the pun on the word lie (e.g., the lie of the ball). The title is really about situation of modern Buddhism: where is it relative to modernity.
Okay, let's start with, "What is modernity (i.e., state of being modern)?"
“This modern feeling now seems to consist in the conviction that we ourselves are somehow new, that a new age is beginning, that everything is possible and nothing can ever be the same again, we want to 'make it new,' get rid of those old objects, values, mentalities, and ways of doing things, and to be somehow transfigured” (Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, p. 310).
The above sums it up nicely (I have Stephen Batchelor's book in mind, Buddhism Without Beliefs). Personally, I see the lie of modern Buddhism as an ancient Indian religion that has been remade into a new psychology to fill the needs of moderns. What has been removed from Buddhism (e.g, karma and rebirth) we deem to be alien and foreign to the needs of modernity. Moreover, what has been removed, certainly doesn't ring of progress nor does it sit well with materialism both of which are vital elements of modernity.
Reading both the Pali Nikayas and the Mahayana Sutras I am always astonished by how much Buddhism is left out of modern Buddhism.
i dont care whether you are a buddhist or not. but if you are inyerested in buddhism , i do hope you do a little bit of homework to find out what buddha really taught.
instead of latching on to any book written by batchelor, etc. anyone can write a book about buddhism, including you and me.
The only thing that bothers me about this discussion is the impression that I get that if I don’t believe this or that (i.e. rebirth and karma) I am not a proper Buddhist, or simply not a Buddhist at all.
The only thing anyone can achieve with that is that I say; “Okay have it your way: I’m not a (proper) Buddhist. Are you happy now?” But me believing any irrational nonsense (no insult, just my perspective) because you think that is what (proper) Buddhists should do; that’s not going to happen.
So the way I see it the better approach is to acknowledge that there are various types of Buddhists. They have some things in common and on other subjects they hold different views. No big deal.
I would label the other approach which says there’s one true faith only and all the rest is delusion as dogmatic.
Isn't it great that so many people are discovering Buddhism in this modern world? Isn't it great that the West is so open to all branches and styles of Buddhist practice?
Instead of worrying about a "Skeptical" or "Modern" or "Materialistic" Buddhism coming onto the scene, celebrate it. It means more people are being exposed to the Dharma and giving it a shot. What are you worried about? Traditional beliefs and mystical Buddhism aren't going away. No Buddhist is going to dive into the religion without learning about what the Sutras had to say about reincarnation and realms and such. We're not driving anyone from the temples. There's loads of modern, Western people who prefer the traditional beliefs precisely because they offer a refuge from materialism, so I'm glad you're around. We're not trying to take anyone's place.
If the Dali Lama arrives in town, I'm certainly not going to be out there with a picket sign because people believe he's a reincarnated monk. I'd be honored to listen to whatever he had to say, and no matter what my beliefs are about reincarnation, I certainly hold to Right Speech and would never be anything but respectful to him and his followers.
This, as I see it, goes with Jameson's: we want to 'make it new,' get rid of those old objects, values, mentalities, and ways of doing things.
I think we humans do have a need to continually re-invent the wheel, though I think with Buddhism this has been going for 2,500 years. Buddhism has adapted to many different cultures since it's inception, now it is adapting to modern western culture.
If you sit down to meditate holding to any view -- positive or negative -- about post-mortem rebirth or karmic influence across lives, what you call "Nihilism," or anything else, that is already a serious obstruction. So where's the problem?
I think that attachment to views - both belief and disbelief - can be a hindrance.
Been pondering this topic for a while and everytime I come to type something, it spirals out of control and more resembles a disjointed chapter of an abandoned idea of a book... rubbish!
I think I'm currently resting on: 'If you seek tuition then you also seek a fiction'.
This doesn't seem to be a concern exclusive to modernity or Buddhism.
I have no problem with a genuine quest for "Buddhism without beliefs" and so forth. What I tire of is the relentlessly amplifying message that any other path is wrong.
The Dalai Lama did indeed say that a modern Buddhism should embrace new information and be broad in its perspective; he also said don't trash other people's paths once you've picked your own. It's completely natural to feel negative toward a path you have left; that's why he warns against falling into the trap of criticizing them. I don't think it really matters if that earlier path is a completely different religion, or simply a different Buddhist path.
I see in Batchelor and others a tendency now to denigrate, as opposed to simply forward an alternate view.
"[At] the end of the day, the problem with Batchelor’s war on karma and rebirth is simply that he is at war. He has set up his camp squarely on the other side of the doctrinal battlefield, and launched his crusade from a place of conviction in the rightness of his view...
In Buddhism without Beliefs Batchelor re-envisioned dharma practice from an agnostic point of view. 'An agnostic Buddhist,” he wrote, “eschews atheism as much as theism, and is as reluctant to regard the universe as devoid of meaning as endowed with meaning. For to deny either God or meaning is simply the antithesis of affirming them.' He even quoted the axiom of T.H. Huxley, who first coined the term “agnosticism” in 1869: 'Do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.' But isn’t that precisely what Batchelor himself is now doing? In noting his shift in recent years from 'Buddhist agnostic' to 'Buddhist atheist,' one cannot help but wonder if he has slipped onto the wrong side of Huxley’s axiom. What happened to eschewing atheism as much as theism?"
Soto is not modern in the sense you mean in this thread.
I would argue against that. One of my friends is heavily connected with AZI (Association Zen Internationale). I know all about it. We can continue if you like, also, with Sanbo Kyodan (三宝教団) Zen.
I think we humans do have a need to continually re-invent the wheel, though I think with Buddhism this has been going for 2,500 years. Buddhism has adapted to many different cultures since it's inception, now it is adapting to modern western culture.
I have been aware that the core of Buddhism is still alive and well although it has had some serious knocks and setbacks during its long lifetime. In the West, modernity has empowered some to change it, even going after its core which teaches that we are fundamentally transcendent except that desire has bound us to what is impermanent and other than our true self.
If one looks at religions today, the core of most is not to be found without a lot of serious digging (this is especially true with the religions of Abraham)—and it is buried for a reason (more on that later). I am afraid that the ethos of Western modernity will end up distorting and obscuring the core of Buddhism, so much so, that it will end up looking something like contemporary Yoga. No Patanjali, thank you—just teach us hatha yoga.
I am not an apologist for Stephen Batchelor, but the emotional lashing out at him as "declaring war on Buddhism" such as Dennis Hunter does above reflects poorly on mainstream Buddhists. He obviously struck a nerve, because the people obsessed with him attack the man instead of discussing his concerns and theories. The above is typical. Hunter has declared Batchelor to be an attacking enemy, someone at war with Buddhism, Hunter's words, and not just a Buddhist with some ideas for a different way to approach Buddhism for some of us. Why is he a dangerous enemy at war and not a dissenting voice? Because Hunter has declared it so. This tells you more about Hunter than anything.
And then instead of a reasoned discussion, Batchelor is attacked for...get this...daring to refine and restate a position. As if either the agnostic or atheist is a stranger to Buddhist thought, but I guess in Hunter's view, being agnostic is fine but being atheist is a terrible no-no? I can't tell what Hunter's anger is from, because it's an argument based on emotion and starts from the assumption that someone is attacking Buddhism. Hunter is suffering from the delusion that his own beliefs are Buddhism, so anything that questions his own views is an attack on Buddhism itself.
Quite frankly, we skeptical Buddhists were here and vocal and active long before Batchelor arrived and nothing he's said is new or shocking. He doesn't speak for me or any Western Buddhists that I know of. In one debate I listened to on youtube, I thought he didn't go near far enough in pointing out the problems with the Tibetan monk's position, but it was an old friend of his and he's a nice guy with a lot of respect for the institutions.
i dont care whether you are a buddhist or not. but if you are inyerested in buddhism , i do hope you do a little bit of homework to find out what buddha really taught.
instead of latching on to any book written by batchelor, etc. anyone can write a book about buddhism, including you and me.
The only thing that bothers me about this discussion is the impression that I get that if I don’t believe this or that (i.e. rebirth and karma) I am not a proper Buddhist, or simply not a Buddhist at all. ...
The point is firstly we have no way of knowing what the Buddha really taught. Our information about that is filtered and adapted through the ages.
And secondly I would be so arrogant to think that even if the Buddha taught something it could still be wrong. He was a child of his time after all.
That last observation is crucial. We are not Indians from roughly 500 BC. It would be silly to think like them and ignore everything people discovered since. I did my homework. I roughly understand dogmatic Buddhism; I just don’t believe in it.
I am not an apologist for Stephen Batchelor, but the emotional lashing out at him as "declaring war on Buddhism" such as Dennis Hunter does above reflects poorly on mainstream Buddhists.
I don't think Hunter says here Batchelor has declared war on Buddhism, rather on karma and rebirth. If you look at the way Batchelor treats these subjects, I don't think war is too strong a term to use. My atheist cousin went down a very similar path, from Christian to disaffected-Christian to atheist crusader, publishing every step of the way.
People wonder how religion gets going in a wrong direction. Well, let's see. In this thread we are talking about "lie", "war", "enemy", "attack", "anger", "argue", "shit", and "crap", and that's just one page worth.
The claim that Batchelor rejects karma and rebirth is a very unpleasant calumny. He accepts the concept of karma as intent conditioning future experience and he accepts dependent origination. These are central teachings by the Buddha. He just doesn't accept the three-lives model, which you don't need.
Comments
Think in many many areas, science is still trying to catch up. Still a long way to go.....
The OP is obsessed on this topic, particularly Batchelor. My advice to him is, if you don't like Batchelor's books, quite reading them. Write your own. Songhill seems to be signing whatever the Buddhist version is of "Onward Christian Soldiers". Trouble is, no one is at war with Buddhism.
No point in bemoaning it, it's here. A new school of Buddhism. Just like all the schools before it, created by followers in new places, new times, new cultural environments.
At least they aren't making up new suttas like some schools have done very successfully in the past!
The only thing anyone can achieve with that is that I say; “Okay have it your way: I’m not a (proper) Buddhist. Are you happy now?”
But me believing any irrational nonsense (no insult, just my perspective) because you think that is what (proper) Buddhists should do; that’s not going to happen.
So the way I see it the better approach is to acknowledge that there are various types of Buddhists. They have some things in common and on other subjects they hold different views. No big deal.
I would label the other approach which says there’s one true faith only and all the rest is delusion as dogmatic.
He has an entire chapter on the Buddhist doctrine of karma with great information as compared with Stephen Batchelor's modernist book, Buddhism Without Beliefs, which has zero; which, by the way, is far more popular than Jayatilleke's book (Amazon ranking: 13,612 vs 3,326,997).
How is dualistic vision treating you?
Where's the problem ? The holding of wrong views that are not conducive to practice that was the point I was making in the first place.
Also there is daily awareness in addition to sitting meditation.
Again, I'm not criticising your view, just trying to understand how karma is not seen.
If the goal is to be continually mindful then meditation should be incorporated into all of our everyday activities in my viewpoint.
Getting cancer; that’s karma. Having birth defects; that’s karma. Being intelligent and successful and healthy; that’s karma.
I gladly accept any plausible explanation but I don’t like the idea of a magical explanation for everything like God’s will or the workings of karma.
If we continue after this life then it makes sense that the process would line up with cause and effect but that could mean almost anything. I could give a couple of plausible explanations if I know the perameters of what you accept as plauible but that doesn't mean they'd be correct.
"God's will" I don't get either. God would have to be some kind of monster. I don't see God as the creator of all things but just the way things go in a process of discovery.
Then again if there is God, then God's will could simply be to see what happens and make the best of it.
Also in my viewpoint God would have to be an effect before it could be a cause.
Our primary job is to abandon Ignorance so its wise to make sure we do things with an open mind as it is easier to make progress that way.
There is definitely, though, a danger--and I think an existing tendency--to treat Buddhism as we have treated yoga. Yoga is in many cases in the west simply a nice form of exercise and relaxation. There's nothing wrong with that, but yoga of course went much deeper than simple exercise in the past.
That's the question with anything we take into the West, though: how deep do we go? We are a culture of increasing breadth, and in many cases, decreasing depth. This trend applies not just to spiritual pursuits, but vocation, trade, art--anything at all that one can spend time at. I think there is no question that in the past, people spend more time on fewer things, and today many of us spend less time on more things.
In such an environment it is inevitable that quick, easy Buddhist paths will be explored; not all of this is "modern Buddhism," some of it is just the fate of our time; nor is all modern Buddhism striving for a quick, easy path.
Some modern approaches to Buddhism really are interested in seeing whether there is alternate imagery and tradition which supports a deep Buddhist practice; some modern approaches to Buddhism, I think, just don't want to do the hard work of delving into someone else's culture in order to get the prize.
It doesn't mean any of it is nefarious; we have a right to seek out what we think is going to be somehow "better." It's only natural. I think it might be more constructive, though, given that Buddhism has come to us intact in multiple forms (Tibetan, Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Cambodian, ...) to ask how we can deal with the fact that Buddhism comes in a cultural tapestry, rather than be so distraught and distracted over that fact.
Culture is only a wrapper; is it really any more disturbing than the other wrappers in our lives? Buddhism asks us to do things much harder than interact with another culture. It asks us to find a way to not yell back at our infuriating brother-in-law, not indulge in some of our delicious yet destructive habits, not see reality at all the way we are accustomed to, and change deep-worn habits we have had for a lifetime or multiple lifetimes.
It seems to me sometimes that asking how to "modernize Buddhism" is really asking the wrong question. Almost like asking how to "modernize an orange" because one prefers the color blue.
The thing I find somewhat ironic is that Buddhism has already adapted in significant ways to the West. Teachings are translated in to English--in fact many decades of laborious work have gone into standardizing translations, just as happened in Tibet long ago. Students don't have to prostrate or bow if they don't feel like it; somes students in my gompa sit on chairs because the floor is too hard on their joints. The teachers take a lot of questions after class, and deal with the fact that the class is always a mix of first-timers and students who've been there for decades. Options for imagery are mentioned very often in an attempt to accomodate the many types of students. It just seems to me we are already given so many options and so much flexibility in our practice as it is. For those who want a deep and serious practice, Buddhism seems to me to be very naturally adapting to the West.
I met Katagiri and his wife back in 1965. He was a Sotoshu guy, very traditional. But it is important to keep in mind that his book stems from Dogen who had some very quirky ideas about Buddhism, e.g., sitting is the alpha and omega of Buddhism. This is not to say that I think Soto is crap. I like both Ejo and Keizan.
Dalai Lama
buddhism has hundreds of millions of adherents.
if you just take a superficial look at the average buddhist,
you will find they are not too different from the average christian or muslim.
as someone who is not born a buddhist, i have searched and found
buddhism practised in the way buddha taught.
and if you think batchelor has the answers, think again. The above sums it up nicely (I have Stephen Batchelor's book in mind, Buddhism Without Beliefs). Personally, I see the lie of modern Buddhism as an ancient Indian religion that has been remade into a new psychology to fill the needs of moderns. What has been removed from Buddhism (e.g, karma and rebirth) we deem to be alien and foreign to the needs of modernity. Moreover, what has been removed, certainly doesn't ring of progress nor does it sit well with materialism both of which are vital elements of modernity.
Reading both the Pali Nikayas and the Mahayana Sutras I am always astonished by how much Buddhism is left out of modern Buddhism.
but if you are inyerested in buddhism , i do hope you do a little bit of homework
to find out what buddha really taught.
instead of latching on to any book written by batchelor, etc.
anyone can write a book about buddhism, including you and me.
Instead of worrying about a "Skeptical" or "Modern" or "Materialistic" Buddhism coming onto the scene, celebrate it. It means more people are being exposed to the Dharma and giving it a shot. What are you worried about? Traditional beliefs and mystical Buddhism aren't going away. No Buddhist is going to dive into the religion without learning about what the Sutras had to say about reincarnation and realms and such. We're not driving anyone from the temples. There's loads of modern, Western people who prefer the traditional beliefs precisely because they offer a refuge from materialism, so I'm glad you're around. We're not trying to take anyone's place.
If the Dali Lama arrives in town, I'm certainly not going to be out there with a picket sign because people believe he's a reincarnated monk. I'd be honored to listen to whatever he had to say, and no matter what my beliefs are about reincarnation, I certainly hold to Right Speech and would never be anything but respectful to him and his followers.
Lie? Thats a bit dramatic, dont you think?
Liars come in all forms. Pun intended.
Modern? The enviroment has changed. It
did'nt check with you first. Life/death/samsara goes on.
Being a Modern Buddhist.
It's a tough job.
Why?
You catch alot of hell....but throw alot of peace.
Stop reading Stephen's stuff, or anyone else
that gets your blood pressure up.
Have you been meditating?
Could you say what you mean by "modern meditation"?
I think I'm currently resting on: 'If you seek tuition then you also seek a fiction'.
This doesn't seem to be a concern exclusive to modernity or Buddhism.
The Dalai Lama did indeed say that a modern Buddhism should embrace new information and be broad in its perspective; he also said don't trash other people's paths once you've picked your own. It's completely natural to feel negative toward a path you have left; that's why he warns against falling into the trap of criticizing them. I don't think it really matters if that earlier path is a completely different religion, or simply a different Buddhist path.
I see in Batchelor and others a tendency now to denigrate, as opposed to simply forward an alternate view.
Dennis Hunter notes:
"[At] the end of the day, the problem with Batchelor’s war on karma and rebirth is simply that he is at war. He has set up his camp squarely on the other side of the doctrinal battlefield, and launched his crusade from a place of conviction in the rightness of his view...
In Buddhism without Beliefs Batchelor re-envisioned dharma practice from an agnostic point of view. 'An agnostic Buddhist,” he wrote, “eschews atheism as much as theism, and is as reluctant to regard the universe as devoid of meaning as endowed with meaning. For to deny either God or meaning is simply the antithesis of affirming them.' He even quoted the axiom of T.H. Huxley, who first coined the term “agnosticism” in 1869: 'Do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.' But isn’t that precisely what Batchelor himself is now doing? In noting his shift in recent years from 'Buddhist agnostic' to 'Buddhist atheist,' one cannot help but wonder if he has slipped onto the wrong side of Huxley’s axiom. What happened to eschewing atheism as much as theism?"
If one looks at religions today, the core of most is not to be found without a lot of serious digging (this is especially true with the religions of Abraham)—and it is buried for a reason (more on that later). I am afraid that the ethos of Western modernity will end up distorting and obscuring the core of Buddhism, so much so, that it will end up looking something like contemporary Yoga. No Patanjali, thank you—just teach us hatha yoga.
And then instead of a reasoned discussion, Batchelor is attacked for...get this...daring to refine and restate a position. As if either the agnostic or atheist is a stranger to Buddhist thought, but I guess in Hunter's view, being agnostic is fine but being atheist is a terrible no-no? I can't tell what Hunter's anger is from, because it's an argument based on emotion and starts from the assumption that someone is attacking Buddhism. Hunter is suffering from the delusion that his own beliefs are Buddhism, so anything that questions his own views is an attack on Buddhism itself.
Quite frankly, we skeptical Buddhists were here and vocal and active long before Batchelor arrived and nothing he's said is new or shocking. He doesn't speak for me or any Western Buddhists that I know of. In one debate I listened to on youtube, I thought he didn't go near far enough in pointing out the problems with the Tibetan monk's position, but it was an old friend of his and he's a nice guy with a lot of respect for the institutions.
And secondly I would be so arrogant to think that even if the Buddha taught something it could still be wrong. He was a child of his time after all.
That last observation is crucial. We are not Indians from roughly 500 BC. It would be silly to think like them and ignore everything people discovered since.
I did my homework. I roughly understand dogmatic Buddhism; I just don’t believe in it.