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.
What's "Modern Buddhism"?
DairyLama
Veteran Veteran
It's a term I stumble across regularly, and it's the name of this sub-forum, but I'm really not sure what it means.
"Modern" as opposed to what - "old-fashioned"?
Any thoughts?
"Modern" as opposed to what - "old-fashioned"?
Any thoughts?
0
Comments
I personally would say that I'm definitely more of a modern Buddhist than a traditional one, because it's true. I'm not using medicinal herbs to treat health problems rather than using modern medicine, I'm not wearing an orange robe and meditating on a mountaintop, and I can't speak any language besides English. But I still regard my personal Buddhist practices to be religious practices. If someone asked me what Buddhism was to me, I would admit that it is my new religion. I'm not rubbing it in anybody's face but I would say it, even though it would be very embarrassing to me as a former atheist.
But I'm just trying to say that I don't think all self-described "modern" Buddhists regard religion as mythology. Many do, but not all.
We can understand that millennia ago people would think that the earth is flat and that there are four elements and that all kind of magic is nothing special. But we can’t seriously think that way today.
We can’t stop at what (tradition tells us) the Buddha said. We have to look with our own eyes and incorporate the essence of Buddhism in our present-day understanding of our world.
There are then also the mental elements: space and concsiousness.
DT Suzuki, the popularizer of Zen in the US was thoroughly modern- knowing that he was addressing an audience influenced by the ideals of the Enlightenment, captitalism, marxism, he created a message that appealed to those sort of people. It was a good thing, imho, I've read that some people in Japan think that they should look to the US Zen experience to revitalize Zen in Japan.
Anything that you see that is eco-Buddhism, feminism-Buddhism, Buddhism that cares about post-colonialism, a lot of engaged Buddhism-- all this is modernity. Obviously there is enough material in Buddhism to pull out of it an argument in favor of environmentalism, equality, justice for all and so on, but that wasn't the main ancient goal, and not really an goal of things that were between. For the last few 1000 years the escape from samsara was a big deal, using the Buddhist organization to generate support for the Emperor and helping take census, generating good luck etc. All good things, but things de-emphasized in the modern world.
'Modern Buddhism is how we are practicing now!'
'Contemporary buddhism - its what we do! Yeah!
. . . eventually . . . we can distance our preferences from our real needs (not able to do that? tsk tsk . . . maybe that is what those teachers we keep hearing about are for?)
The genuine teacher is always trying to make themselves redundant and pass the buck to the notorious, all knowing, Mr Cushion.
. . . and now back to the ancient debate on the latest wheel turning . . .
:wave:
So in that sense all the Buddhist schools we see are "contemporary", eg see the list suggested here:
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/19989/picking-a-school-of-buddhism-for-the-new-buddhist#latest
So we can say all these schools are contemporary, but are they all "modern"?:
It's kind of like saying "All Catholics are Christian, but not all Christians are Catholic".
"Modern" Buddhists are not all religious Buddhists; but in earlier times, all Buddhists were religious, and I imagine no one questioned that at all.
In modern times, because we do know that the Earth is not flat, and we now have Science, and modern medicine, and know (for the most part) the inner workings of the mind and body... religion and superstition plays a much much smaller part in our day-to-day lives and practices.
People are certainly free to keep their faith and religious traditions in whatever path they wish... and many do.
But in a "modern world" even the most devout (usually) knows when to set aside the prayers, rituals and chants, and take that antibiotic, or have that surgery, or go see a psychologist or counselor.
In modern times we know you can't "pray away the gay" or that mental illness is not a demon's or the devil's mind control. In modern times we know that "sin" doesn't cause diseases... and little by little I think Modern Buddhists are beginning to question if Karma (from past lives) does or not.
I make no negative implications on anyone who wishes to 'keep the faith' so to speak.
But I do sort of resent being told that because secular Buddhists (like me) don't, it means we're "exclusionary" or "pretentious".
Science and technology isn't 'pretentious'... it simply is.
Of course. Even in times past, such things occurred. People went to a "doctor" who able to administer the best care they knew how to give, and lets not be naive about "modern" medicine. It ain't that great. In fact, considering I live in a civilized country that still has one of the highest child mortality rates in the world, I'd ask just how good is our "modern medicine" But you just did! The implications were, whether you like it or not, pretty negative.
If I were to choose to pray away my cancer, that's none of your buniess and certainly not to offer comment on.
Then be mindful of your thoughts and you won't have to be seen as pretentious and exclusionary. If the shoe fits .....
Scientists and technologists can be and often are pretentious. Science doesn't think. Science doesn't speak. Science doesn't act. Science is, karmically speaking, pretty harmless. Just like religion. Religion is just an idea, an abstraction, just like science. It's what people do with it that matters.
I'm sure you're right, there are some scientists or technologists who may be pretentious. But then there are clergy and believers who are also elitists and pretentious. That is an individual trait.
Religion is myth, legend, superstition... and finally, faith.
Huge difference in my book. And I have no problem with anyone wishing to have religion and faith in their lives. I've read scientific articles that claim humans - generally - are actually 'hard wired for religion'... and I tend to believe that as well.
But Religion is not harmless. As you say, science doesn't act or speak. But religions do... religious books and clergy tell people what to think, how to act, what to say.
Religion can be, has been, and probably will always be a bone of contention between peoples. Religion, taken to extremes, is damaging and oppressive to individuals, groups of people within societies, as well as to societies as a whole. Wars have been fought for religion and by religion.
We all know that negative history of religions, one way or another, in every culture around the world at some point in time.
[snipped]
But you just did! The implications were, whether you like it or not, pretty negative.
If I were to choose to pray away my cancer, that's none of your buniess and certainly not to offer comment on.
But I do sort of resent being told that because secular Buddhists (like me) don't, it means we're "exclusionary" or "pretentious".
Then be mindful of your thoughts and you won't have to be seen as pretentious and exclusionary. If the shoe fits ....
Perhaps you should rethink your own assumptions and stop reading negativity where none was intended. My opinions are regarding religion, I'm trying to keep my comments on that and not individual folks who happen to believe in it.
I did ask that you not call secular Buddhist pretentious or exclusionary... true. But where did I call names??
[end snip]
Textbook definition for ya! And that's very true. That's why fottbal is religion, science is religion and Secular Buddhism is religion.
Again, you prove my point. Religion is just a collection of idea, which on their own are incapable of any action whatsoever. People can choose to take that and go to war. But "choose" is the operative term. Oppenhiemer didn't have to make The Bomb. The science didn't make him do it. He chose to do it. He wasn't powerless.
I understand your intention, but depite that you did come off a bit negatively But religion is an intensly personal thing. When you go down the road you're going, people will take it personally, regardless of your intention. If you don't already know that, it may be time to take that to heart. You didn't, but then, you don't have to call people names to speak negatively of them. I could speak volumes on Secular Buddhists and not speak a single aspersion. I could still be painfully negative.
You personalized it and pulled out the negativity you wanted to apply to my words.
Sorry you couldn't read my comments objectively. And yes, I absolutely do see your point how you *could* take my opinions and viewpoints personally- but I'm assuring you I didn't mean it that way. You still want to nitpick it and argue? Well I don't.
But one last thought- My secular Buddhism is very important and personal to ME as well... just as important as your brand of religious Buddhism is to you (as you state).
I only asked you not make assumptions and not label secular Buddhists with names like pretentious, etc. If you had other negative things to say about secular Buddhism without labels and name calling; well so be it, I'd have to deal with your opinions for what they are.
Just as I'm asking you to do with my opinions.
Modern Buddhism is actually also a very good book
Different people have different warning bells regarding words and regardless of the existence of a dictionary. Dictionaries are a modern thing that happened after the printing press. Dictionaries are not an arbiter of meaning. They are just a collection of meanings as abstracted from the direct communication of beings. In some cases it is like what humpty dumpty said, "words mean what I say they mean."
For one person religion rings a warning bell. For another religion and faith in the triple gem is sound as a pound.
I have known many practicing Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews & Christians - lovely people all of them, but I have also had personal experience of radicalised muslims and to a very much lesser extent radical christians (at a London University 20 years ago). I was not impressed and this is not anti-islam/christian, its about radicalised indoctrinated religion, and the effects of poor understanding and bad leaders… Religion is one of the greatest sources of suffering in the world…
Buddhism is about the alleviation of suffering, and I challenge anyone to convince me otherwise. Buddhism is not a religion, but some people may feel they should revere an object, and that is fine, but don't become defensive about it to the point where insane belief predominates. People make choices. Sometimes they are wrong, but realise motivation, intention and right and wrong and don't try to defend the indefensible, with an interpretation of a belief in the unspoken' s word.
Today in the UK we heard about the evidence presented for the off-duty soldier who was run over and then repeatedly stabbed (no macheted, with attempted beheading) to death in South East London - and these 2 people said they acted out of self defence… NO they were cold-blooded murderers and very few people could possibly doubt it. Some people are sick and some religious leaders are worse for condoning it - ignorance is ignorance is ignorance, that can be overcome. Some people may behave like cancers…
Contemporary buddhism is not a religion it is an meditation with intelligent discourse, on the experience of here and now, .
The difference between the countries with the lowest infant mortality (Scandinavian countries) vs the US, has to do with distribution of resources-- the Nordic countries chose universal health care, the US chose a strictly free market method that leaves gaps in coverage.
The difference is not due to the Nordic countries sticking with traditional medicine, adopting alternative medicine or rejecting science. The reason why the US has such a crappy system isn't because scientists and researchers recommended it, its because those with resources and money cling tightly too them and figure if a penny is given to the poor, the poor will want the rest too, i.e. it's a matter of power and politics and in this question, the scientists don't have any say.
Placebos are great things, when I was in Russia and was sick, the mother of the house plied me with all sorts of crack nostrums. I knew they weren't going to fix me, but it was a nice way for her to show that she cared if her guest was feeling sick. Now if I had strep throat, I would have gone for a swab test & taken a course of antibiotics instead (or in addition to traditional care-- again it's nice to know that people care). I don't mind things that work via the mind, after all, that how meditation works, via the mind.
Sorry for going off topic. I'm a stickler for numbers.
USA has (had) the best medical system in the world and we have the easy stat to calculate, to prove it=the expected life span. I think we are # 1 and even though we are quickly destroying our system that # will probably stay up there for a while. It takes time to let people die. Best
Karma and rebirth, supernatural powers, are not proven facts; but for some people they are part of their religious beliefs. It is of course their right to believe what they wish, but I would not call them modern.
I think it is possible to be religious in my heart and a practicing Buddhist and include modern skeptical and scientific attitudes. I feel that as liberating.
I was raised with a faith based religion. I can’t kick out one type of ancient nonsense out the door and then invite some other ancient nonsense to take its place.
In my liberation from faith it helped to compare religions. How can people seriously say that the bizarre stories which are told in other religions are nonsense and then take their own - absolutely similar - stuff and fall for it?
Here's some antonyms ....
old
old-fashioned
past (doesn't make sense)
future (I like that one!)
ancient
antiquated
obsolete
outdated
passe
Most of those are pretty negative. Some border on pejorative. I'm sure you're not trying to be negative, just like Mary Ann, but the pitfall is that that it's nearly impossible to take a position like yours without risking negativity towards others or at least placing oneself above others. You're positing an extreme.
Thus you may be missing what is the essence, the heart of Buddhism. Or perhaps "modern" nonsense? Plenty of that going around ..... :rolleyes: Yes, we all do that. We take those things that culture has hard-wired into our makeup and we fall for it as if it was The Real Deal. Sometimes it can be subtle and sometimes gross, but it all ends up the same - nonsense.
The heart of Buddhism, if it really has one, is Refuge - Refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. That's where it all begins. You're not really practicing Buddhism if you haven't taken that first, very important step and everything Buddhist comes from that.
So are you saying that "Modern Buddhism" means "non-traditional"? Or are you saying it means "non-religious"? Or something else?
What you quoted there was from a reply to another post... what I posted below is cut n pasted from my original post waaaaay up the thread, which answers the question; What is Modern Buddhism:
I always assumed it meant modern as how we apply the basics to our lives today, as opposed to times before technology, modern medicine, and the awareness that 'religion' is mythology...
However, I agree- I also believe that Buddhism -in our time- is much less religious than it was 200, 500, 1000 years ago, or more.
Science has replaced much of the superstition and religion that 'answered the questions' for people regarding life, health, mental illness, and our planet and universe.
Remember, stars were once thought to be lanterns for the Gods... and the Earth was thought to be flat, and good karma/luck bad karma/luck played a huge part in people lives... almost to the point they thought they were 'powerless' to change things in their lives.
I would hesitate to say that "modern" Buddhism means any one, singular thing, though. I don't think that would ever happen with Buddhism, or any other religion or spiritual path, either.
"The heart of Buddhism, if it really has one, is Refuge - Refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. That's where it all begins. You're not really practicing Buddhism if you haven't taken that first, very important step and everything Buddhist comes from that."
Do you really believe this ^ is what makes Buddhism a "religion", or 'religious'?
I disagree. I have taken refuge, I follow the precepts, honor the 4 noble truths and 8 fold path.... that makes me a Buddhist.
I do not believe in demons, gods, treating the Suttras like the Buddhist Bible, hell realms, and the like.
I can't fully commit (without doubts) to the ideas of inescapable Karma, reincarnation, etc.
These are the religious /superstitious beliefs of Buddhism. And I am not using the word superstition or superstitious with any sort of derision. It's a word with a viable definition in this context.
Problem? Naah, just look at it as 'diversity'.
Perhaps then people won't get so defensive....
Lets just agree to individually believe what ever we want to believe regardless to data and return to the topic of the thread.