Buddhism has developed over 2,500 years and the philosophy and practices of Buddhism have developed in accordance with time, place, and culture as its ideas have spread. Even though the historic Buddha is said to have lived approximately 2,500 years ago, Buddhism is often viewed in the West as the most modern of world religions.
Yet, in many of its cultures of origin, a number of people now view Buddhism as old-fashioned, irrational and too much tied up with superstitions. This is one factor that works against an appreciation of fundamental Buddhist philosophy and practices. The other is the Western view that Buddhism is too deep and so abstract that no one can ever understand it.
But the Buddhist approach to life is essentially pragmatic and practical. It directly addresses fundamental human problems and approaches problem solving in a concrete way. One of the foundational tenets of Buddhism is that, if we want to make progress towards wisdom, we have to recognize the root causes of human suffering.
The essence of Buddhism is timeless and universal, but its practice adapts according to context. Buddhist tradition is rooted in India and other parts of Asia, but, in the latter half of the 18th century, Buddhism (along with many other Eastern religions and philosophies) came to the attention of Westerners. Soon, Western scholars began to learn Asian languages and translate Asian texts.
Buddhism - as a religion or as a philosophy of life - is not bound by culture to any particular society, race, or ethnic group. Historically, there are a number of traditional Buddhist practices and therefore there are Indian Buddhists, Tibetan Buddhists, Thai Buddhists, Chinese Buddhists, Sri Lankan Buddhists, Burmese Buddhists and so forth. In the 1990s, Buddhism became the fastest-growing religion in non-Asian nations, in contrast to a steady decline of traditional Western religious beliefs. Now, there are also European Buddhists, American Buddhists, Russian Buddhists, African Buddhists, etc.
Buddhism translates easily from culture to culture because the emphasis in Buddhism is on internal practice and the way in which one develops one's mind. As with other religions, symbolism and ritual are important features of practice, but Buddhist moral principles and emphasis on the transformation of the innermost self are critical and common tenets of all Buddhist practices.
With its focus on individual practice rather than on narrow institutional memberships or obligations, Buddhism fits into contemporary world views as it encourages intellectual development and a deeply moral respect for all life.
Now that Buddhism is growing, how can Buddhists maintain their core convictions while new Buddhist traditions are being created that are relevant to widely varying cultures across today's globe?
Despite the growth and spread of Buddhism in countries across the face of the world, there are few places on the web that present a truly 'global', international context in which to discuss Buddhism and Buddhist philosophy and practices.
Such a context requires - in fact, demands - tolerance of differences, openness to both spiritual and intellectual discussion, readiness to experiment, and willingness to open the 'architecture' of the experiment to comment from an international community of members.
0
Comments
I have been reading on the site to which you link. I admit to being rather surprised by the second item on the page, The Fatal Mistake of Modernism. This is a deeply flawed piece of patronising, sexist pseudo-philosophy. It is also theist and Euro-centric to a significant extent.
I am greatly enjoying deconstructing and refuting the false assumptions and attempts at 'forcing cards' but I cannot see what it may have to do with 'global Buddhism'.
And isn't the Dharma universal anyway? What need for some sort of pale, exsanguinated Buddhism? After all, there is a worrying assertion within the piece you posted from the site:
Whole swathes of Buddhism would deny that any 'transformation of the innermost self' was envisaged. Just ask, among others, our beloved Genryu. He is likely to reply something along the lines of, "And who is the self to which the innermost is inner to?"
I fear that this sentence, above all, leads me to worry that the laudable aims of the site rest on rocky foundations.
But thank you for joining us, and welcome to our forum, by the way.
An interesting read, although most are farly relevant, but well, like what fede said, hit-and-miss...
It is me that is responsible for allowing the said article to be promoted to the front page. I found several points in it that are very much debatable, so it should be regarded as an invitation to dialogue and productive discussion. And of course, we as editors, are not bound in any way to publishing only Abhidharma exegetic monographs or Vinaya apologetics. The New Buddhism must certainly be open to creative dialogues.
Hope our learned Brother is aware of the existence of the Buddhist Tahtagatagarbha doctrine of the most inner embryo of Buddha, our true inner self.
Please, refer to Bharahara-sutra and, certainly, to Anatta-lakkhana-sutta
Probably this link will help
In short, my Yogacara-like answer is that "Not-Self" is an apophatic way (phenomenological reduction) to the yogi-pratyaksa realization of dharmakaya as nitya, shubha, ananda and atma.
This isn't going to be on the test, is it? 'Cuz if it is I'm sunk!
Yogi-pratyaksa is the fourth type of valid perception in Nyaya-bindu, the standard Buddhist Manual of Logic of Acarya Dharmakirti. The term refers to the adequate intuitions of the advanced Yogi - it is not for haphazard that the system is called Yogacara.
Dharmakaya refers to dharmata, the first corpus of Buddha, out of the trikaya. It is subdivided into jnanika-dharmakaya (cognitive dharma corpus) and svabhavika-dharmakaya (intrinsic dharma corpus). As opposed to all dharmas, this dharmakaya is
Nitya - eternal
Subha - pure
Ananda - bliss
Atma - Self
Anitya, asubha, duhkha and anatma are the characteristics of all empirical phenomena. These are all ABC of Buddhism, and - of course - they will be not on the test. :-)
Best regards,
So I'll start with the terms and when I'm familiar enough with them I'll move onto the understanding of the historical doctrines behind the concepts and then the concepts themselves.
(PSSST...Fede, I don't know anything yet so for heaven's sake don't copy anything from me now. We'll both be sunk. Give me a little while to get a handle on it...But it's not going to be on the test anyway. Or will it....? Hmmmm.....)
You will find Indian logic and especially Buddhist logic really exciting. Not that boring as the Aristotelian one. :-)
Although I hold in high regard the life of the mind, after many years in the academy myself, I must wonder at what point it is most useful to study such things formally, if at all? And how would you know if it helped or hindered?
questZENer, I am afraid I share your skepticism. Yet I am sure that when you wake up, you will find your academic background very helpful when communicating to the others the realizations you have been blessed with.