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.
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 ancient antiquated obsolete outdated passe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.
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.
Or perhaps "modern" nonsense? Plenty of that going around ..... :rolleyes:
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.
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.
I'm old. You see that as negative? In some ways I'm old-fashioned. You see that as pejorative? Past. History is negative or pejorative? I've visited many ancient sites, including many ancient Buddhist sites. I didn't find them to be negative or pejorative. What's negative or pejorative about saying that steam trains are antiquated? What's pejorative about saying that a term such as retarded is obsolete or outdated? What's negative or pejorative about saying that women wearing bustles are passe?
There is nothing inherently negative or pejorative about those terms. Now, putting :rolleyes: into the discussion could be considered by many as being pejorative.
I do agree with your final paragraph, with some hesitation on the sangha aspect.
I think as a whole Buddhism is less religious than it used to be, probably due to the gradual secularisation of modern societies. So are you saying that "Modern Buddhism" means "non-traditional"? Or are you saying it means "non-religious"? Or something else?
Faith is used as the english word for a number of sanskrit words. One meaning of faith is sradda where you embody the teachings you have learned. Everyone does this. Insight without sradda is never put into practice and does not transform. This can be attained by a modern/secular Buddhist, so I am not being exclusive. I am just reporting that there are faith based beliefs in Buddhism as both a religion and a scientific process. What people think of as faith in a Christian sense is not what Buddhism considers faith as it is translated in a number of words. A Christian takes God as their saviour and you just have to have that faith and Jesus will let you through the door of heaven. In Buddhism faith is used as a tool for mind training. Faith can help steady a person. Sradda and prajna (insight) need to be balanced.
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.
How about a modern interpretation of ancient nonsense? For example what is 'hell' for you? What are your idols and psychological demons? Does being in a constant state of change entail a form of rebirth into new being?
MatMart: Your questions are excellent. Allow me to pose a few answers. In a totalitarian government (one with a controlled press, no freedom of speech, no right to gather or protest, teaching dictated and finances controlled....) The government just says what it wants and makes itself look good. Not all governments are at all interested in honest observations. Stalin killed off everyone who knew about the outside world.
Roughly 2/3 of all UN nations are totalitarian so you answered your own question-yes they would. Autocrats secure and keep power by whatever means-including murder of their own people Stalin murdered about 40 million , Mao over 80 million-get the picture? When Saddam Hussein said 100% of his people voted and everyone of them voted for him-did you believe him? He wasn't bright enough to be believable. He was smart enough to murder protesters though. Governments want to be believed they just don't want to look bad doing it. So they lie when they think it is to their advantage. The important thing is to have a free press, so that objections may be heard.
I don't think the US does much lying on the national arena-we don't need to. Yeah locally politicians have been know to lie. But, one side or another of the free press is always ratting them out. If you look around you can get to the goods. Of course seeing only one side does leave you pretty vulnerable. We use to have a pretty monolithic press but now we could-can-see both sides if we bother. That is why the free press is the first victim of totalitarian regimes. In our USA Republic we have the Bill of Rights and the 13, 14, and 15th amendments to help us keep govt. in check and have open debate. Part of our protection of liberty is the ability of either party to easily stop the other party. The Constitution is set up that way for the protection of the people. When we lose the checks and balances on our restrained government we may quickly be made slaves. That is more important than "getting things done" especially when they are non-cooperative one sided things.
If you want to stick to the thread and not discuss politics I am happy with that. I will let you demonstrate your willingness and I will obligingly follow. mtgby
P.S. The number of babies who die in child birth (unintentionally), pales beside the number (around 60 million children) who have been intentionally murdered. Now as a Buddhist who cherishes life, that horrendous figure really tics me off. That number is significantly larger than all of the war dead from all of our wars-counting both sides. Child murder has always been with mankind but is has usually been as a response to starvation and extreme want. We do it for convenience. And in truly horrible numbers. Now that is shameful.
"A Christian takes God as their saviour and you just have to have that faith and Jesus will let you through the door of heaven."
Perhaps that would be sufficient comprehension for a child's Sunday class. However, Valdimir Lossky, in maintaining patristic thought, provides us a deeper understanding of faith and salvation:
What one quests is already present, precedes us, makes possible our question itself. ‘Through faith, we comprehend (we think) how the ages have been produced’ (Heb. 11:3). Thus faith allows us to think, it gives us true intelligence. Knowledge is given to us by faith, that is to say, by our participatory adherence to the presence of Him Who reveals Himself. Faith is therefore not a psychological attitude, a mere fidelity. It is an ontological relationship between man and God, an internally objective relationship for which the catechumen prepares himself, and through which baptism and chrismation are conferred upon the faithful: gifts which restore and vivify the deepest nature of man.(From Orthodox Theology).
This is a much deeper understanding of salvation in that it speaks both of action of our will (adherence) as well as true participation in the Reality which is our salvation. St Paul says, “…I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me” (Phil. 3:12).
"A Christian takes God as their saviour and you just have to have that faith and Jesus will let you through the door of heaven."
Perhaps that would be sufficient comprehension for a child's Sunday class. However, Valdimir Lossky, in maintaining patristic thought, provides us a deeper understanding of faith and salvation:
What one quests is already present, precedes us, makes possible our question itself. ‘Through faith, we comprehend (we think) how the ages have been produced’ (Heb. 11:3). Thus faith allows us to think, it gives us true intelligence. Knowledge is given to us by faith, that is to say, by our participatory adherence to the presence of Him Who reveals Himself. Faith is therefore not a psychological attitude, a mere fidelity. It is an ontological relationship between man and God, an internally objective relationship for which the catechumen prepares himself, and through which baptism and chrismation are conferred upon the faithful: gifts which restore and vivify the deepest nature of man.(From Orthodox Theology).
This is a much deeper understanding of salvation in that it speaks both of action of our will (adherence) as well as true participation in the Reality which is our salvation. St Paul says, “…I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me” (Phil. 3:12).
I'm not denying the relationship with Christ. Didn't I say that the most important thing was faith in your saviour. I guess I didn't flesh out anything about the relationship. I feel like I am in tight quarters not misrepresenting the Buddhist concept of faith while still maintaining an accurate picture of Christianity. Thanks for you post to extend the meaning of faith in Christianity.
A simple view of Christianity is faith leads to salvation. I had a friend who wasn't Buddhist and I liked his simple view of Buddhism. He said "good bucket, bad bucket".... that's kind of respect to karma and that is a part of Buddhism.
My Lama talks about the simularities between faith in Guru Rinpoche, Padmasambhava and faith in God. Padmasambava and the guru (who is seen as one with padmasambhava via the lineage) are valid as a spiritual resource. There are some differences and although I transcribed that dharma talk and went over the whole thing (1.5 hours) many times to get every word right I still can't remember all of the points.
Lama Shenpen: (here she is telling a great convergence of God language and guru language)
If you are reading it with a sense that you are referring to the ineffable. You are referring to something that is beyond anything that you could grasp at. And then the whole language of it can be quite evocative. It can be quite touching actually.
And very reminiscent of of guru yoga. When you are reading prayers to the guru it’s very much like reading devotional prayers to God. And I don’t think there is anything surprising about that. It’s actually the same movement of the heart. It just depends what the guru or God is, what the message is, doesn’t it? And that would depend on the teacher, really. How well you are being taught and who is conveying what to you by means of this language. Because guru language can be just as kind of narrow and theistic and inverted comments as God language, couldn’t it? It can be associated with fantasies about a guru, a particular personal guru, and a particular sense of my relationship to my guru is so special and I’m so special and my religion is so special and my group is so special and dee da dee da dee da and it’s kind of ‘poof.’ Or it could be a genuine sense of..
‘I think there is an expression I think isn’t there of ‘a man of God’? Somebody, when you meet such a person that truth of being that is God comes through them, and through your connection with them. It communicates itself which is very much what is being talked about when you talk about the guru, that there is some truth coming through the guru. And if you fixate on the details of the vessel, you know you can become quite disillusioned. But if you are relating to that truth that is coming through them you yourself can intuitively sense what to ignore as being merely a chip in the cup, and nothing to do with the liquid inside of it. You yourself can sense the difference. So you know you get some quite battered up vessels sometimes. I sometimes call them taps. The guru is like a tap. You might have a rusty kind of squeaky tap but the water is pretty good. The water is fine. And it’s the tap where I am. And it where my Bucket is. So the water is coming through and that is fine by me. There may be a better one miles away but I’m here and it’s coming through so you know I’ll just get on with it. A bird in the hand sort of attitude. But, yes, it’s not worth picking holes in the tap, really.
Lama Shenpen: (here she criticizes the theistic view sometimes held)
I think he himself uses the term a phase?? as a kind of, what’s the word, to kind of degrinate? a certain attitude of kind of dependency. Kind of hanging on to a belief or something that is going to make everything alright. So instead of really turning towards your experience, how it truly is, you are trying to shine it all up and say it’s all alright because it’s all coming from God and God is kind and good. And if you are happy and grateful God will take care of me and have a whole sort of belief system around that. And in a way it’s trying to kind of shine up one’s experience and make it all nice and happy and light and kind of all shiny and the bad bits are kind of not really there. And if I hype myself up enough I can just sort of suppress all that and just kind of look on the bright side. And that’s a kind of theistic view. You’d call a theistic view, where you are hanging on to an idea that it’s all right really and that I don’t really have to look at it. So that he would scorn this approach to spiritual practice. Saying ‘No. Sit and be with your experience whatever it is.’ Don’t favor what’s good and reject what is bad. Just open out into that uncertainty of the openness of your experience. He used the expression groundless, the groundlessness of your experience. There is nothing to hang onto. You don’t need to have an idea of God or whatever it is, or dharmakaya for that matter, and hang onto that for that matter and say ‘this is dharmakaya, this is dharmakaya, oops where has it gone where is my dharmakaya?’ Really, trying to hold onto something. Just face that kind of mysteriousness.
so @Silouan this is a take on the likenesses and differences. Just from my Lamas understanding. Of course other strokes for other folks.
@Jeffrey It is difficult to to discuss and convey these ideas, but what you provided in response is informed and respectable. Thanks for the clarification.
BTW - God language is pure prayer. Pure prayer is interior silence and stillness. Interior silence and stillness is life.
For me one word comes to mind regarding the term modern Buddhism or modern Christianity for that matter, and that is individualism. Rather than a way of life they have largely become a life style choice based on the decisions of an individual; Cut, pasted, and rearranged to satisfy a life style.
I was raised with a faith based religion. I can’t kick one type of ancient nonsense out the door and then invite some other ancient nonsense to take its place.
How about a modern interpretation of ancient nonsense? For example what is 'hell' for you? What are your idols and psychological demons? Does being in a constant state of change entail a form of rebirth into new being?
That's a solution. There is wisdom in many religious ideas but we have to do some work; not assuming they are factual correct but digging for a deeper meaning.
@riverflow “is today modern the modern sun rising”
The image of the sun made me think. I like to think that in Zen (the religious tradition that I’m most comfortable with) there is something like the sun; an unchanging core. This core is a question, a challenge, a living experience, a practice: What is Enlightened Life? How does it manifest right here and now?
But unlike the sun; the weather changes every moment and changes through the seasons. Some days I wear a raincoat some days I wear sunglasses. Unlike the sun (the religious inspiration) the weather (the world) changes fast. Newton was modern but Einstein made him outdated. They were both probably equally genius but Einstein is more modern. Saying that is not being derogative towards Newton. Buddha Gautama was probably a brilliant man too; but he worked with the material he had at his disposal.
Modern Buddhism is the challenge to manifest Enlightenment in a way that includes the changes in our understanding of the world we live in.
Modern Buddhism is the challenge to manifest Enlightenment in a way that includes the changes in our understanding of the world we live in.
Exactly. We do not exist in the same social, psychological, wisdom base as the old masters. We have Wikipedia as well as the traditions, superstitions and cultural hand me downs. In short we have the best and worst of both the old and new. The skill is in the balancing of the Middle Way.
The three jewels are a basis with many facets. :wave:
Ok! Lets go for 'contemporary buddhism'. This is a much better term as it has 'time' or 'tempor' caught up in the title, rather than 'mode' meaning 'fashionable'…
'Contemporary buddhism - its what we do! Yeah!
Yes, definitions can be a bear, can't they? I've always taken the term "Modern Buddhism" as used in these categories as simply "Current Affairs" or what's in the news and on the internet recently. Beyond that, modern is simply what is being practiced and taught at the time and place. And place is just as important as the date. "Modern Living" for someone in New York and someone in rural China are two wildly different things. Why shouldn't the religion reflect that?
A thousand years from now, if humanity survives, the Buddhism we practice today and thoughts written down will be studied and revered as something sacred like we do the writings of a thousand years ago.
What to call non-secular Buddhism without being derogatory about it: faith based.
It depends what you mean by "faith". Faith in the Buddhist sense means confidence in teachings and method, which presumably applies to all kinds of Buddhism.
I think as a whole Buddhism is less religious than it used to be, probably due to the gradual secularisation of modern societies. So are you saying that "Modern Buddhism" means "non-traditional"? Or are you saying it means "non-religious"? Or something else?
From my viewpoint, yes. Either. Both.
But then how do we distinguish modern Buddhism from secular Buddhism? Or are they effectively the same?
It depends what you mean by "faith". Faith in the Buddhist sense means confidence in teachings and method, which presumably applies to all kinds of Buddhism.
Exactly. I have no need to have faith in science. From experience we know it works. Same with dharma. Try it. Works? Improves your sense of well being? Then we develop a sense of confidence. What does not work tends to fall away, be reinterpreted or fiercely defended by the dharma dogmatists. Discernment is our responsibility. :wave:
I think as a whole Buddhism is less religious than it used to be, probably due to the gradual secularisation of modern societies. So are you saying that "Modern Buddhism" means "non-traditional"? Or are you saying it means "non-religious"? Or something else?
From my viewpoint, yes. Either. Both.
But then how do we distinguish modern Buddhism from secular Buddhism? Or are they effectively the same?
I think what's actually happening is that religion -- pretty much world-wide -- is transforming into personal faiths, rather than strict adherence to "the" faith.
By chance, yesterday I went to a Catholic Mass. I've done that about once a year for the last 3 years. When I was a boy, about 30% of the people at any one Mass would go up for Communion...because to do so one should have gone to Confession since committing any mortal sins. Now, even though far fewer people ever go to Confession, 90% of the people, or more, go up for Communion. Why? Because they identify as Catholic, but do not agree with the Church's rules. Why does the Pope still talk against birth control and abortion, yet 82% of Catholics see no problem with birth control, and a majority have no problem with divorce?
And, in a sense, I see that happening with Buddhism. To begin, what is the most true form of Buddhism? Theravada? Mahayana? Vajrayana? And then there are all the subsets. Not to mention secular Buddhism. And then there is wide variance in how Buddhists look at karma and rebirth.
Are secular and modern Buddhism effectively the same? Yes and no. Because I'd throw in one other form of Buddhism -- New Age. And all 3 types of Buddhism are pretty loosely defined...by the individual practitioner.
Comments
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.
I'm old. You see that as negative?
In some ways I'm old-fashioned. You see that as pejorative?
Past. History is negative or pejorative?
I've visited many ancient sites, including many ancient Buddhist sites. I didn't find them to be negative or pejorative.
What's negative or pejorative about saying that steam trains are antiquated?
What's pejorative about saying that a term such as retarded is obsolete or outdated?
What's negative or pejorative about saying that women wearing bustles are passe?
There is nothing inherently negative or pejorative about those terms. Now, putting :rolleyes: into the discussion could be considered by many as being pejorative.
I do agree with your final paragraph, with some hesitation on the sangha aspect.
I don't trust my limited senses and I have faith in higher intelligence than me.
For example what is 'hell' for you? What are your idols and psychological demons?
Does being in a constant state of change entail a form of rebirth into new being?
Roughly 2/3 of all UN nations are totalitarian so you answered your own question-yes they would. Autocrats secure and keep power by whatever means-including murder of their own people Stalin murdered about 40 million , Mao over 80 million-get the picture?
When Saddam Hussein said 100% of his people voted and everyone of them voted for him-did you believe him? He wasn't bright enough to be believable. He was smart enough to murder protesters though. Governments want to be believed they just don't want to look bad doing it. So they lie when they think it is to their advantage. The important thing is to have a free press, so that objections may be heard.
I don't think the US does much lying on the national arena-we don't need to. Yeah locally politicians have been know to lie. But, one side or another of the free press is always ratting them out. If you look around you can get to the goods. Of course seeing only one side does leave you pretty vulnerable. We use to have a pretty monolithic press but now we could-can-see both sides if we bother. That is why the free press is the first victim of totalitarian regimes. In our USA Republic we have the Bill of Rights and the 13, 14, and 15th amendments to help us keep govt. in check and have open debate. Part of our protection of liberty is the ability of either party to easily stop the other party. The Constitution is set up that way for the protection of the people.
When we lose the checks and balances on our restrained government we may quickly be made slaves. That is more important than "getting things done" especially when they are non-cooperative one sided things.
If you want to stick to the thread and not discuss politics I am happy with that. I will let you demonstrate your willingness and I will obligingly follow. mtgby
Although at least it did prove the concept of samsara.
:aol:
Child murder has always been with mankind but is has usually been as a response to starvation and extreme want. We do it for convenience. And in truly horrible numbers.
Now that is shameful.
Are you modern
is the first
tree that comes
to mind modern
does it have modern leaves
who is modern after hours
at the glass door
of the drugstore
or
within sound of the airport
or passing the
animal pound
where once a week I
gas the animals
who is modern in bed
when
was modern born
who first was pleased
to feel modern
who first claimed the word
as a possession
saying I’m
modern
as someone might say
I’m a champion
or I’m famous or even
as some would say I’m
rich
or I love the sound
of the clarinet
yes so do I
do you like classical
or modern
did modern
begin to be modern
was there a morning
when it was there for the first time
completely modern
is today modern
the modern sun rising
over the modern roof
of the modern hospital
revealing the modern water tanks and aerials
of the modern horizon
and modern humans
one after the other
solitary and without speaking
buying the morning paper
on the way to work
~ W.S. Merwin
I'm not denying the relationship with Christ. Didn't I say that the most important thing was faith in your saviour. I guess I didn't flesh out anything about the relationship. I feel like I am in tight quarters not misrepresenting the Buddhist concept of faith while still maintaining an accurate picture of Christianity. Thanks for you post to extend the meaning of faith in Christianity.
A simple view of Christianity is faith leads to salvation. I had a friend who wasn't Buddhist and I liked his simple view of Buddhism. He said "good bucket, bad bucket".... that's kind of respect to karma and that is a part of Buddhism.
My Lama talks about the simularities between faith in Guru Rinpoche, Padmasambhava and faith in God. Padmasambava and the guru (who is seen as one with padmasambhava via the lineage) are valid as a spiritual resource. There are some differences and although I transcribed that dharma talk and went over the whole thing (1.5 hours) many times to get every word right I still can't remember all of the points.
Lama Shenpen: (here she criticizes the theistic view sometimes held) so @Silouan this is a take on the likenesses and differences. Just from my Lamas understanding. Of course other strokes for other folks.
BTW - God language is pure prayer. Pure prayer is interior silence and stillness. Interior silence and stillness is life.
For example what is 'hell' for you? What are your idols and psychological demons?
Does being in a constant state of change entail a form of rebirth into new being?
That's a solution. There is wisdom in many religious ideas but we have to do some work; not assuming they are factual correct but digging for a deeper meaning.
“is today modern
the modern sun rising”
The image of the sun made me think. I like to think that in Zen (the religious tradition that I’m most comfortable with) there is something like the sun; an unchanging core.
This core is a question, a challenge, a living experience, a practice: What is Enlightened Life? How does it manifest right here and now?
But unlike the sun; the weather changes every moment and changes through the seasons. Some days I wear a raincoat some days I wear sunglasses.
Unlike the sun (the religious inspiration) the weather (the world) changes fast.
Newton was modern but Einstein made him outdated. They were both probably equally genius but Einstein is more modern. Saying that is not being derogative towards Newton.
Buddha Gautama was probably a brilliant man too; but he worked with the material he had at his disposal.
Modern Buddhism is the challenge to manifest Enlightenment in a way that includes the changes in our understanding of the world we live in.
The three jewels are a basis with many facets. :wave:
A thousand years from now, if humanity survives, the Buddhism we practice today and thoughts written down will be studied and revered as something sacred like we do the writings of a thousand years ago.
The only "Buddhism" that matters is the one that you yourself practice in this very moment.
Then we develop a sense of confidence. What does not work tends to fall away, be reinterpreted or fiercely defended by the dharma dogmatists. Discernment is our responsibility.
:wave:
By chance, yesterday I went to a Catholic Mass. I've done that about once a year for the last 3 years. When I was a boy, about 30% of the people at any one Mass would go up for Communion...because to do so one should have gone to Confession since committing any mortal sins. Now, even though far fewer people ever go to Confession, 90% of the people, or more, go up for Communion. Why? Because they identify as Catholic, but do not agree with the Church's rules. Why does the Pope still talk against birth control and abortion, yet 82% of Catholics see no problem with birth control, and a majority have no problem with divorce?
And, in a sense, I see that happening with Buddhism. To begin, what is the most true form of Buddhism? Theravada? Mahayana? Vajrayana? And then there are all the subsets. Not to mention secular Buddhism. And then there is wide variance in how Buddhists look at karma and rebirth.
Are secular and modern Buddhism effectively the same? Yes and no. Because I'd throw in one other form of Buddhism -- New Age. And all 3 types of Buddhism are pretty loosely defined...by the individual practitioner.