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.
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.
Heh. But we are having a discussion instead of a yelling match. That's amazing, for an internet board. This place always amazes me.
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.
From Buddhist Geeks Dennis Hunter, who does the Rebel Buddha blog, said:
Still, 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.
Batchelor is generally looked down upon by those who are well versed on the subject of Buddhism simply because he brings nothing new to Buddhism. Batchelor is only declaring what he believes Buddha should be. The bulk of his audience are Buddhist newbies who are not up to speed on Buddhism.
"An agnostic Buddhist vision of a culture of awakening will inevitably challenge many of the time-honord roles of religious Buddhism. No longer will it see the role of Buddhism as providing pseudoscientific authority on subjects such as cosmology, biology, and consciousness as it did in prescientific Asian cultures. Nor will it see its role as offering consolating assurances of a better afterlife by living in accord with the worldview of karma and rebirth. Rather than the pessimistic Indian doctrine of temporal degeneration, it will emphasize the freedom and responsiblity to create a more awakened and compassionate society on this earth" (Batchelor, Buddhism Without Beliefs, pp. 114-5).
If there is a war for Mr. Batchelor it is the "agnostic Buddhist vision" vs "religious Buddhism" which is based on "pseudoscientific authority." The new agnostic Buddhism will be a happy Buddhism without the unpleasant pessimism of Indian doctrine.
Batchelor appears to be slouching towards Bodh Gaya.
It always starts off slow. And then someone gets angry. But, true, this is -- overall -- a pretty peaceful board.
One doesn't have to be angry to debate important issues of the day such as the lie of Buddhism (remember "lie" is here used as a pun). As you well know, anger makes one unable to argue coherently. I have the most amazing calmness when I read Batchelor. His wiliness is astonishing. It is easy to miss it if one doesn't take him calmly and seriously—and I do.
I thought Batchelor made assertions in Buddhism without Beliefs but was never specific. For example he said that Buddhists advocated transcendentalism, but he didn't mention specific passages, teachers, or such. I find that the question of transcendentalism is more complex and there is a greater variety of views in the many streams of Buddhsim whereas Batchelor might make you think that 'Buddhism' was a homogenous religion. For example Pema Chodron says that Buddhism is not transcendental and rather you just go more deeply into what is here rather than transcend it.
So Batchelor had an impossible task of reacting to all of Buddhism whereas Buddhism is very diverse with differences in emphasis and differences in appearance.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
One thing all Buddhists seem to agree on is the Four Nobles and the Eightfold Path.
In each of the eight "rights" there are points of contention which is only natural since we are all unique but to use these points as things to divide us is unhealthy. I don't care how many sects over in either direction you are, you are my brethren.
Getting upset over our differences is silly and I agree that this board is quite capable of peaceful and fun debate/discussion.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I thought Batchelor made assertions in Buddhism without Beliefs but was never specific. For example he said that Buddhists advocated transcendentalism, but he didn't mention specific passages, teachers, or such. I find that the question of transcendentalism is more complex and there is a greater variety of views in the many streams of Buddhsim whereas Batchelor might make you think that 'Buddhism' was a homogenous religion. For example Pema Chodron says that Buddhism is not transcendental and rather you just go more deeply into what is here rather than transcend it.
Very much in agreement here. Transcending is too close to escapism in my view. For how do we come to penetrate that which we feel we are above?
"No longer will it see the role of Buddhism as providing pseudoscientific authority on subjects such as cosmology, biology, and consciousness as it did in prescientific Asian cultures. Nor will it see its role as offering consolating assurances of a better afterlife by living in accord with the worldview of karma and rebirth. Rather than the pessimistic Indian doctrine of temporal degeneration, it will emphasize the freedom and responsiblity to create a more awakened and compassionate society on this earth" (Batchelor, Buddhism Without Beliefs, pp. 114-5).
Buddhist philosophy and culturally-Buddhist sciences provide, to me, significant insight into cosmology, biology and consciousness; in accord with the views of karma and rebirth they offer not 'consolating assurances' (if only!) of a better next life but instead the view that I myself must work toward a better next life if I want it (i.e. take responsibility); and finally they emphasize a more awakened and compassionate society on this earth (which I gather is Batchelor's way of saying "today.")
The odd thing about being so anti-rebirth is that in a great sense it doesn't matter whether you see the future as rebirth, or simply the fate of your grandchildren. Most if not all the efforts that benefit your rebirth would also benefit your grandchildren and other humans. I don't believe that overemphasis on today is the natural counterargument to rebirth, because even if you don't have to pay the price as a rebirther (!), your children and grandchildren will.
I'm also not sure why he feels the need to swipe at eastern biology and consciousness theory; I think it's been clearly shown that much of eastern medicine--certainly traditional botanical science--is effective, and currently the subject of much Western medical interest. Similarly, eastern thought on consciousness is earning increasing respect among Western scientists. I feel Batchelor's dismissal here is characteristic of what is troubling in his approach--overstatement, over-correction, shades of disdain. Maybe he doesn't mean to sound disdainful, but consistently, that's how he sounds to me.
Buddhism has never demanded we grant it pseudoscientific authority or any authority at all, has it? Buddhism is just a school of thought, we can take it or leave it. I sense a sort of peeved "you can't make me" in his tone; but Buddhism isn't trying to make anyone do anything, from what I see.
Over-correction is a hallmark of the convert, in my experience. There's no eternal shame in it as long as we try to recognize it when it happens and temper the invective back towards something more rational (karma is just a pessimistic Indian doctrine of temporal degeneration? Come on.) Authors are up a creek in that respect, faced with having to publicly counter their previous arguments, if they care to at all.
I don't know if this is an aside, but speaking of convert zealotry, does anyone think it's possible his reaction is against experiences with fellow sangha, perhaps including his past self, rather than primary teachers? I could see over-enthused convert sangha perhaps embracing Buddhist concepts so rigidly, as we in the West are wont to do, that someone's reaction down the road ends up being an equally-zealous turning away. I ask, because I haven't personally studied with any traditional teachers who are so zealous in their teachings that they inspire any sort of reactionary negativity.
I'm not trying to deny him his experience, just figure out what exactly has him so hopped up about this issue. It's not like geshes phone you at home and grill you as to whether you've "accepted karma and rebirth."
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
If there is truely no seperation then if nothing else, we are reborn with every child and bud.
For me, that is good enough to make compassion logical on all fronts.
Next life? What if it is all happening right now!?!
I always interject in a rebirth discussion the fact that we are not the skhandas and have not any realization to substantiate what rebirth does or doesn't mean. How can we know about rebirth without knowledge of that which is reborn (or not as the case may be).
Essentially I am saying that we are ignorant of what a being is. Thus how do we know what rebirth is?
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.
Please don't be afraid my friend. The dharma will survive.
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.
But he does reject the traditional description in the suttas of beings re-appearing after death in different realms according to their actions. Just to be clear.
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.
The impression I have is that early Indian thought was remarkably sophisticated.
Let's ask for a minute, what's so special or unusual about "Western" modern thinking that the Dharma is in danger from? Japan, Korea, India, and China have universities and industry and people struggling to acquire as much wealth as they can. There's no "Western" and "Eastern" science, only science. There is no "Western" and "Eastern" mind, only mind.
I've lived with the people of Korea, and they're every bit as modern and materialistic as anyone in the West. Same with Japan. The people in every culture and age think they're special and modern. The Dharma has seen it many times before.
That's not to say a religion won't get trapped in tradition and ritual, clutch it's Holy Revealed Truth too tight, and lose sight of its purpose from time to time, and that's also true with the Sangha. That's not the fault of the modern world or those materialistic people out there. It's human nature to worship the founders and dead saints that shook up the world long ago and ignore the great minds and thinkers walking around today.
What the West has that the East doesn't have is a lack of tradition, that's all. We don't have the fortress of "That's the way we've always taught it!" and "That's the way we've always done it!" and "That's the way our founder told us to do it!" to keep us from exploring the rich teaching, and yes even taking it apart to see how it works and trying new ways of practicing and living the Middle Way.
Now, not all tradition is bad, of course. There is a core set of statements and beliefs in any religion that make it what it is. There are people who lay claim to the Buddha that practice a religion that has nothing to do with the Dharma. It happens. It has always happened. I remember the first time I found out a Buddhist sect worshipped a piece of paper and claimed getting what they desired in life was the proper goal. But that doesn't endanger Buddhism. We are supposed to have faith in the power of the Dharma.
I don't think there is a lack of tradition and ritual in the west. Just certain aspects being emphasized and others ignored, and I think that this is largely the result of initial subliminal reservations regarding their purpose and meaning that is greatly influenced, like or not, by the Reformation worldview.
This worldview generally holds that tradition is held as bad at worst or unnecessary at best. Acts of ritual as part of tradition are seen as empty, or simply just what someone thinks them to be. However, human beings are not static, but actually move and these movements have always been understood to carry meaning. They aren't empty movements, because they have meaning and power. What they represent is made present good or bad.
@Cinorjer I know of the Buddhist sect you are referring to, and what you are describing could be very misleading to some so hopefully I can clarify a bit. You are actually describing a pronounced emphasis of a belief of a lay organization that was excommunicated from its traditional source.
Basically, the piece of paper, the Gohonzon, you mentioned in its traditional source is not worshipped but venerated as the embodiment of the Mystic Law (Dharma) of Cause and Effect, and the oneness of the Person and the Law.
One practices to establish firmness and awareness of that Law which permeates all life including the practitioner. Living in proper accordance with the Mystic Law is believed to help one overcome negative Karma, and bring favorable results this lifetime and good circumstances in the next. It involves the ritual or practice called Gongyo of chanting the mantra Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, certain chapters of the Lotus Sutra, and prayer while seated infront of the Gohonzon. Mind, eyes, ears, speech, and posture are all involved.
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.
The Taoism, shamanism, tantra and ancestor worship that found their way into Buddhism around Asia don't have anything to do with Buddhist canon, either. This "lie of Buddhism" is nothing new. You either accept that Buddhism adapts to different cultures, as it has been doing for a couple thousand years, or you shut down half or more of the temples in Asia, and require followers to attend Buddhist re-education seminars, and hand in their ancestor idols and other accoutrements that aren't in conformance with what the Buddha taught. Take your pick, which is it going to be? Live and let live, or an international purge? And who gets to decide what goes and what stays--you?
You either accept that Buddhism adapts to different cultures, as it has been doing for a couple thousand years, or you shut down half or more of the temples in Asia, and require followers to attend Buddhist re-education seminars, and hand in their ancestor idols and other accoutrements that aren't in conformance with what the Buddha taught. Take your pick, which is it going to be? Live and let live, or an international purge? And who gets to decide what goes and what stays--you?
I say, caveat emptor. This means that each of us has an obligation to decide for ourselves; and each of us is free to criticize particular views of Buddhism just like Mr. Batchelor does.
I would have to object to the concept that tantra is not in the Buddhist canon - to say this would be to exclude much of the Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Tibetan, Mongolian, Laotian and Cambodian canon.
Even the Pali canon, by some estimates, contains the nucleus of tantra and therefore its earliest known source:
It's accurate, I think, to propose something like "tantra is not prominent in the canon of my Buddhist school," but not accurate to say "tantra is not in the Buddhist canon."
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.
There is a long history of Buddhist reform, of 'thus was I told' and Heterodoxy. People still sit on their lotus seats because the bo tree had no swing under it . . . The lie of ye olde Buddhism is that age is an indication of worth. Mature modernity is true to the spirit of reform when practiced with integrity.
going back to your original post, what are the top ten things you see in Pali sutras which are left out of modern Buddhism?
1. Nibbana 2. Samsara 3. Karma 5. Rebirth 6. Spiritual body (manomaykaya) 7. Radiant mind 8. Puthujjanas (worldlings) 9. Ariya-savaka 10. Five khandhas belong to Mara the evil one
...each of us has an obligation to decide for ourselves; and each of us is free to criticize particular views of Buddhism just like Mr. Batchelor does.
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.
I'm still not really clear what you mean by "modern Buddhism". Do you just mean Secular Buddhism as described by people like Stephen Batchelor, or are you also including the various forms of Buddhism adapted for a western audience, eg Friends of the Western Buddhist order, New Kadampa Trust, Samatha Trust, Interbeing, Rigpa, etc.?
I have deliberately stayed away from this thread as it is imo predicated on calumny..but among the organisations you mention Pedantic Porpoise, both Rigpa and the NKT are deeply traditional...in the case of the latter the Shugden issue arises BECAUSE it is deeply traditional. Albeit in a tradition which is at odds with the Dharamsala status quo. In other words the Shugden issue is nothing to do with " modernism ". And Rigpa is very much a mainstream Nyingmapa sangha.
After years of poking around in philosophy I find that nearly all of Buddhist doctrine can be derived in logic from basic tenets without any need for leaps of faith. But rebirth seems to be independent of logic. I can find no formal argument for or against it. I tend to believe in it but it makes no difference to anything what I believe. I assume I'll find out the facts sooner or later. My conclusion is that there is no point in arguing about rebirth since there is simply no way to resolve the argument by reference to logic or science. Either we know it is true or false or we don't.
...both Rigpa and the NKT are deeply traditional...
Yes, those 2 groups are certainly on the traditional end of the spectrum, but I think they could be included as types of modern Buddhism.
I don't know about Rigpa but the NKT seems to have abandoned much of Tibetan Culture and come forward in recent years while maintaining what was taught by the lineage guru's in a simpler applicable way. Geshe Kelsang's recent book Modern Buddhism suggests that it has moved on in style and presentation as well.
...both Rigpa and the NKT are deeply traditional...
Yes, those 2 groups are certainly on the traditional end of the spectrum, but I think they could be included as types of modern Buddhism.
I don't know about Rigpa but the NKT seems to have abandoned much of Tibetan Culture and come forward in recent years while maintaining what was taught by the lineage guru's in a simpler applicable way. Geshe Kelsang's recent book Modern Buddhism suggests that it has moved on in style and presentation as well.
Oh and In comparison to someone like Stephen Batchelor as the OP pointed out this is a good example of maintaining traditional teachings but in a Modern Presentation instead of simply abandoning things because of Materialistic inclinations.
I'm still not really clear what you mean by "modern Buddhism". Do you just mean Secular Buddhism as described by people like Stephen Batchelor, or are you also including the various forms of Buddhism adapted for a western audience, eg Friends of the Western Buddhist order, New Kadampa Trust, Samatha Trust, Interbeing, Rigpa, etc.?
I am following Jameson's train of thought on this one which is a particular kind of action that we take towards old traditions and, in this case, Buddhism.
Batchelor is very modern. But he is not the only one in Buddhism who feels the needs to make Buddhism new; to "get rid of those old objects, values, mentalities, and ways of doing things." This is not about adapting Buddhism to modern culture, wearing a sports coat instead of robes, it's about changing, more or less, the very core of Buddhism; to make have modern appeal.
“For example, the Nuddhists believe that Enlightenment is a state of being whereby believers take off all their clothes in public without shame (e.g. in lectures, bus queues, and shops). One form of this is Zen Nuddhism, which involves the study of mystic koans, most of which end up with the disciples taking their clothes off and going out for a pizza. They strive to achieve Nervana, a state of nervelessness in which the body is nothing, and the clothes are too. A more surreal sub-branch of this has gone in for Mathematics and discovered Einstein's squashed clock paradox, also known as the Dali Lemma.”
“For example, the Nuddhists believe that Enlightenment is a state of being whereby believers take off all their clothes in public without shame (e.g. in lectures, bus queues, and shops). One form of this is Zen Nuddhism, which involves the study of mystic koans, most of which end up with the disciples taking their clothes off and going out for a pizza. They strive to achieve Nervana, a state of nervelessness in which the body is nothing, and the clothes are too. A more surreal sub-branch of this has gone in for Mathematics and discovered Einstein's squashed clock paradox, also known as the Dali Lemma.”
I'm still not really clear what you mean by "modern Buddhism". Do you just mean Secular Buddhism as described by people like Stephen Batchelor, or are you also including the various forms of Buddhism adapted for a western audience, eg Friends of the Western Buddhist order, New Kadampa Trust, Samatha Trust, Interbeing, Rigpa, etc.?
I am following Jameson's train of thought on this one which is a particular kind of action that we take towards old traditions and, in this case, Buddhism.
Batchelor is very modern. But he is not the only one in Buddhism who feels the needs to make Buddhism new; to "get rid of those old objects, values, mentalities, and ways of doing things." This is not about adapting Buddhism to modern culture, wearing a sports coat instead of robes, it's about changing, more or less, the very core of Buddhism; to make have modern appeal.
It seems to me Buddhism already has huge modern appeal. Which leave me wondering if his effort as about working for his own ideas as much as it is about working against others'.
After years of poking around in philosophy I find that nearly all of Buddhist doctrine can be derived in logic from basic tenets without any need for leaps of faith.
No amount of playing with logic or formal logic is going to lead to awakening (sambodhi). This is another modern delusion.
I have deliberately stayed away from this thread as it is imo predicated on calumny..
Really? Calumny is "the act of uttering false charges or misrepresentations maliciously calculated to damage another's reputation" (Merriam-Webster dictionary).
I am eager to hear how my OP is "predicated on calumny." The ball is in your court.
It seems to me Buddhism already has huge modern appeal. Which leave me wondering if his effort as about working for his own ideas as much as it is about working against others'.
Buddhism does have appeal but what makes it appealing may not be anything the Buddha, himself, actually taught—it may owe more to slick marketing.
Following the western pilgrim Batchelor as he makes his way through Tibetan Buddhism and Korean Zen is interesting. I don't read him as having an open mind. He is a westerner through and through. His observation about the koan given to him by Kusan Sunim, shows his western side. This is from his book, Confession of a Buddhist Atheist on page 68.
“Once again, I found myself confronted by the specter of a disembodied spirit. The logic of Kusan Sunim’s argument failed to convince me. It rested on the assumption that there was “something” (i.e., Mind) that rules the body, which was beyond the reach of concepts and language. At the same time, this “something” was also my true original nature, my face before I was born, which somehow animated me. This sounded suspiciously like the Atman (Self/God) of Indian tradition that the Buddha had rejected.”
Comments
Batchelor appears to be slouching towards Bodh Gaya.
He [Stephen] is just going off willy-nilly, isn't he?
lolololol
So Batchelor had an impossible task of reacting to all of Buddhism whereas Buddhism is very diverse with differences in emphasis and differences in appearance.
In each of the eight "rights" there are points of contention which is only natural since we are all unique but to use these points as things to divide us is unhealthy. I don't care how many sects over in either direction you are, you are my brethren.
Getting upset over our differences is silly and I agree that this board is quite capable of peaceful and fun debate/discussion.
(the book club never really succeeded as we didn't finish any books we started out on)
Buddhist philosophy and culturally-Buddhist sciences provide, to me, significant insight into cosmology, biology and consciousness; in accord with the views of karma and rebirth they offer not 'consolating assurances' (if only!) of a better next life but instead the view that I myself must work toward a better next life if I want it (i.e. take responsibility); and finally they emphasize a more awakened and compassionate society on this earth (which I gather is Batchelor's way of saying "today.")
The odd thing about being so anti-rebirth is that in a great sense it doesn't matter whether you see the future as rebirth, or simply the fate of your grandchildren. Most if not all the efforts that benefit your rebirth would also benefit your grandchildren and other humans. I don't believe that overemphasis on today is the natural counterargument to rebirth, because even if you don't have to pay the price as a rebirther (!), your children and grandchildren will.
I'm also not sure why he feels the need to swipe at eastern biology and consciousness theory; I think it's been clearly shown that much of eastern medicine--certainly traditional botanical science--is effective, and currently the subject of much Western medical interest. Similarly, eastern thought on consciousness is earning increasing respect among Western scientists. I feel Batchelor's dismissal here is characteristic of what is troubling in his approach--overstatement, over-correction, shades of disdain. Maybe he doesn't mean to sound disdainful, but consistently, that's how he sounds to me.
Buddhism has never demanded we grant it pseudoscientific authority or any authority at all, has it? Buddhism is just a school of thought, we can take it or leave it. I sense a sort of peeved "you can't make me" in his tone; but Buddhism isn't trying to make anyone do anything, from what I see.
Over-correction is a hallmark of the convert, in my experience. There's no eternal shame in it as long as we try to recognize it when it happens and temper the invective back towards something more rational (karma is just a pessimistic Indian doctrine of temporal degeneration? Come on.) Authors are up a creek in that respect, faced with having to publicly counter their previous arguments, if they care to at all.
I don't know if this is an aside, but speaking of convert zealotry, does anyone think it's possible his reaction is against experiences with fellow sangha, perhaps including his past self, rather than primary teachers? I could see over-enthused convert sangha perhaps embracing Buddhist concepts so rigidly, as we in the West are wont to do, that someone's reaction down the road ends up being an equally-zealous turning away. I ask, because I haven't personally studied with any traditional teachers who are so zealous in their teachings that they inspire any sort of reactionary negativity.
I'm not trying to deny him his experience, just figure out what exactly has him so hopped up about this issue. It's not like geshes phone you at home and grill you as to whether you've "accepted karma and rebirth."
For me, that is good enough to make compassion logical on all fronts.
Next life? What if it is all happening right now!?!
Essentially I am saying that we are ignorant of what a being is. Thus how do we know what rebirth is?
We know exactly what rebirth.
We know exactly what rebirth is.
We know exactly what becoming is
We know exactly what rebirth is
We know exactly what rebirth is
I've lived with the people of Korea, and they're every bit as modern and materialistic as anyone in the West. Same with Japan. The people in every culture and age think they're special and modern. The Dharma has seen it many times before.
That's not to say a religion won't get trapped in tradition and ritual, clutch it's Holy Revealed Truth too tight, and lose sight of its purpose from time to time, and that's also true with the Sangha. That's not the fault of the modern world or those materialistic people out there. It's human nature to worship the founders and dead saints that shook up the world long ago and ignore the great minds and thinkers walking around today.
What the West has that the East doesn't have is a lack of tradition, that's all. We don't have the fortress of "That's the way we've always taught it!" and "That's the way we've always done it!" and "That's the way our founder told us to do it!" to keep us from exploring the rich teaching, and yes even taking it apart to see how it works and trying new ways of practicing and living the Middle Way.
Now, not all tradition is bad, of course. There is a core set of statements and beliefs in any religion that make it what it is. There are people who lay claim to the Buddha that practice a religion that has nothing to do with the Dharma. It happens. It has always happened. I remember the first time I found out a Buddhist sect worshipped a piece of paper and claimed getting what they desired in life was the proper goal. But that doesn't endanger Buddhism. We are supposed to have faith in the power of the Dharma.
This worldview generally holds that tradition is held as bad at worst or unnecessary at best. Acts of ritual as part of tradition are seen as empty, or simply just what someone thinks them to be. However, human beings are not static, but actually move and these movements have always been understood to carry meaning. They aren't empty movements, because they have meaning and power. What they represent is made present good or bad.
@Cinorjer
I know of the Buddhist sect you are referring to, and what you are describing could be very misleading to some so hopefully I can clarify a bit. You are actually describing a pronounced emphasis of a belief of a lay organization that was excommunicated from its traditional source.
Basically, the piece of paper, the Gohonzon, you mentioned in its traditional source is not worshipped but venerated as the embodiment of the Mystic Law (Dharma) of Cause and Effect, and the oneness of the Person and the Law.
One practices to establish firmness and awareness of that Law which permeates all life including the practitioner. Living in proper accordance with the Mystic Law is believed to help one overcome negative Karma, and bring favorable results this lifetime and good circumstances in the next. It involves the ritual or practice called Gongyo of chanting the mantra Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, certain chapters of the Lotus Sutra, and prayer while seated infront of the Gohonzon. Mind, eyes, ears, speech, and posture are all involved.
Even the Pali canon, by some estimates, contains the nucleus of tantra and therefore its earliest known source:
http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/bot/pdf/bot_1986_02_03.pdf
It's accurate, I think, to propose something like "tantra is not prominent in the canon of my Buddhist school," but not accurate to say "tantra is not in the Buddhist canon."
if really believe what you said, then why bother?
we dont know what buddha taught, nobody knows anything about buddha for sure.
you will be better off pursuing something else.
You have a point. I do know very little.
The lie of ye olde Buddhism is that age is an indication of worth. Mature modernity is true to the spirit of reform when practiced with integrity.
Let's get enlightened instead!
2. Samsara
3. Karma
5. Rebirth
6. Spiritual body (manomaykaya)
7. Radiant mind
8. Puthujjanas (worldlings)
9. Ariya-savaka
10. Five khandhas belong to Mara the evil one
And Rigpa is very much a mainstream Nyingmapa sangha.
Batchelor is very modern. But he is not the only one in Buddhism who feels the needs to make Buddhism new; to "get rid of those old objects, values, mentalities, and ways of doing things." This is not about adapting Buddhism to modern culture, wearing a sports coat instead of robes, it's about changing, more or less, the very core of Buddhism; to make have modern appeal.
I think I’ll go for the combination of Nuddhism without beliefs.
I think I’ll go for the combination of Nuddhism without beliefs.
Batchelor is very modern. But he is not the only one in Buddhism who feels the needs to make Buddhism new; to "get rid of those old objects, values, mentalities, and ways of doing things." This is not about adapting Buddhism to modern culture, wearing a sports coat instead of robes, it's about changing, more or less, the very core of Buddhism; to make have modern appeal.
It seems to me Buddhism already has huge modern appeal. Which leave me wondering if his effort as about working for his own ideas as much as it is about working against others'.
I am eager to hear how my OP is "predicated on calumny." The ball is in your court.
Following the western pilgrim Batchelor as he makes his way through Tibetan Buddhism and Korean Zen is interesting. I don't read him as having an open mind. He is a westerner through and through. His observation about the koan given to him by Kusan Sunim, shows his western side. This is from his book, Confession of a Buddhist Atheist on page 68.