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.
Everything Changes. Buddhism, too!
DaltheJigsaw
Mountain View Veteran
Religions and philosophies thrive, wither, or die according to their ability to address the existential concerns of a particular time and place. As religions evolve, traditionalists strive to maintain ideas and practices which have lost their resonance, while modernizers strive to reinvent the religion to meet the needs of the moment. Religions that survive over millennia manage to thread the needle between these two extremes.
Judaism, for example, evolved over time from the worship of a local semitic tribal deity, to a monotheism based on ritual animal sacrifice, to a rabbinic religion based on prayer, sacred texts, charity, and moral observance. There was plenty of in-fighting along the way between traditionalists and reformers — Hellenists vs. Maccabees, Nisnagdim vs. Hasidim, Orthodoxy vs. Reform.
Buddhism has also evolved in response to changing circumstances. Many Buddhisms are long extinct — who remembers the Hemavatika or Rajagiriya? — while newer forms emerge with predictable regularity. Today we honor many of the re-inventors (e.g., Nāgārjuna, Dōgen, Hakuin), but there was plenty of in-fighting along the way — Theravāda vs. Mahāyāna, Kamalaśila vs. Moheyan, Nichiren vs. Ryōkan, Wallace vs. Batchelor.
As we explore Buddhist evolution, it can be useful to examine how Buddhism has adapted — and continues to adapt — to changed existential circumstances. We can ask, for example, “What concerns did Buddhism address in 500 B.C.E. India?” and “What concerns does it address in the West today?” Answers to these questions may help us understand the trajectory of Buddhism’s ongoing evolution.
Speculation about the existential concerns of a vanished culture and era is always perilous, but we can at least explore the concerns that animated the philosophical debates of that time and place. All of the philosophical systems that emerged from the Indian subcontinent (e.g., Buddhism, Jainism, Advaita Vedanta, Yoga) were concerned with pretty much the same thing: liberation from cyclical existence. Life was suffering, the endless cycle of rebirth was meaningless, and the doctrine of karma, based as it was on a set of Brahmanic ritual practices, had lost credibility. The Buddha provided a way to moralize karma and elucidated a path for ending cyclical existence that resonated with his time.
http://www.existentialbuddhist.com/2011/10/everything-changes-buddhism-too/
Judaism, for example, evolved over time from the worship of a local semitic tribal deity, to a monotheism based on ritual animal sacrifice, to a rabbinic religion based on prayer, sacred texts, charity, and moral observance. There was plenty of in-fighting along the way between traditionalists and reformers — Hellenists vs. Maccabees, Nisnagdim vs. Hasidim, Orthodoxy vs. Reform.
Buddhism has also evolved in response to changing circumstances. Many Buddhisms are long extinct — who remembers the Hemavatika or Rajagiriya? — while newer forms emerge with predictable regularity. Today we honor many of the re-inventors (e.g., Nāgārjuna, Dōgen, Hakuin), but there was plenty of in-fighting along the way — Theravāda vs. Mahāyāna, Kamalaśila vs. Moheyan, Nichiren vs. Ryōkan, Wallace vs. Batchelor.
As we explore Buddhist evolution, it can be useful to examine how Buddhism has adapted — and continues to adapt — to changed existential circumstances. We can ask, for example, “What concerns did Buddhism address in 500 B.C.E. India?” and “What concerns does it address in the West today?” Answers to these questions may help us understand the trajectory of Buddhism’s ongoing evolution.
Speculation about the existential concerns of a vanished culture and era is always perilous, but we can at least explore the concerns that animated the philosophical debates of that time and place. All of the philosophical systems that emerged from the Indian subcontinent (e.g., Buddhism, Jainism, Advaita Vedanta, Yoga) were concerned with pretty much the same thing: liberation from cyclical existence. Life was suffering, the endless cycle of rebirth was meaningless, and the doctrine of karma, based as it was on a set of Brahmanic ritual practices, had lost credibility. The Buddha provided a way to moralize karma and elucidated a path for ending cyclical existence that resonated with his time.
http://www.existentialbuddhist.com/2011/10/everything-changes-buddhism-too/
0
Comments
Sorry, Leon - couldn't resist - the existential connection.....
"Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant"
:bowdown:
Buddhism here in thailand for example, I hate to use this, but OMG. Monks with ATM cards, everyone thinks it is a form of luck, if you having bad luck go to the temple and everything will be better.
I was also reading the thread on alters, or shrines if you will. i wonder if the buddha was around here today what he would say that we all had statues of him, maybe some or a lot of us are attached to them. If I came and smashed up your alter, would you suffer...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html
I like it!:)