What would Buddha think of the state of Buddhism today?
DaftChris
Spiritually conflicted. Not of this world. Veteran
Most secular western Buddhists claim that what eastern Buddhists are doing goes against what Buddha had taught. That it went from ones mans philosophy on the nature of humankind to a full blown devotional religion; complete with all of the ritualistic trappings. Never minding the fact that I think middle class westerners have done more harm than good to Buddhism in general, do they have a point?
All Buddha really taught was what he considered to be the flaws of the nature of humankind and how we could overcome it. Everything else (gods, rituals, scriptures), while not prohibited per se, aren't really necessary. Yet, in the countries where Buddhism spread to, the folk deities would eventually be assimilated into Buddha Dharma and give birth to very unique (and in some cases highly syncretic) schools of Buddhism. Some incorporated Hindu deities (in the case of Sri Lanka and Nepal), others east asian deities and Taoism (Chinese and Japanese Mahayana), and in some cases Buddhism was simply applied to the already dominant folk religions of the region (such as in Tibet).
So what do you think? Are the bulk of Buddhists completely missing the point of Buddha Dharma? Or is it all just the natural evolution of philosophical and religious thought?
Or, do people get way too caught up in what constitutes a "Buddhist", and that it really doesn't matter if a Buddhist reveres any "Folk" deities; as long as they follow Dharma to the best of their abilities?
Comments
As I read your post, I clarified in my mind what makes a religion. One man -- in this case Siddhartha -- says something along the lines of "I have perceived the way it is". He begins, for whatever the reason, to spread his beliefs, and others begin to follow. A religion begins.
But then, as with almost any following, others begin to say, "I have a piece of the puzzle, too." And they want to bring about an adjustment to the religion. Sometimes it happens within that religion, other times there is a splinter group.
So, I don't know what Buddha would think about it, but the scenario is very much along the lines of what studies have shown happens in most organizations.
If Siddhartha Gautama lived today, he'd be a different Siddhartha Gautama than the one that lived 2500 years ago. The world is different, conditions are different, and he'd have been raised differently.
I think a lot of people mistake what "enlightenment" means, and if not for that everything would be peachy. They're trying to "get" something, to "be" something, instead of learn how to shed their delusions and suffering.
Buddhism had adapted to many different cultures since the Buddha's time, and currently it's adapting to western secular society. So it's about how the Dharma finds expression in different cultures and times.
We might like to think that a modern secular approach to Buddhism is somehow more authentic, but I think the jury is out on that one.
So would any of you say there is anything inherently wrong with Buddhists who do follow the more colorful schools of Buddhism? Or do show reverence and bhakti to Boddisattvas and Devas? Or is it all "delusion".
Because, last time I checked, most Buddhists in the world are a part of the aforementioned. Heck, even in Thailand, pujas are still conducted for Hindu deities. Are they somehow less Buddhist than someone in the west who rejects such "superstition" and strips it down to bare bones meditation?
I think what matters is meditation and contemplation of the nature of phenomena (impermanent, selfless, etc.), along with a set of ethics... basically following the Noble Eightfold Path. Anything else is extra and should be okay so long as it doesn't somehow block realization of how things really are. So no, nothing inherently wrong with colorful Buddhism. To each their own!
I regard them all as "proper Buddhists", they are just practising in a different way. I think in the west we can sometimes be rather patronising about how people approach Buddhism in other cultures.
Having spent so much in Thailand, I know exactly what you're talking about.
As to inherently wrong...well, even if someone is inherently wrong (which really is defined as having an opinion different than "mine"), so what. It's their path. They have a right to choose the route.
I broadly agree with your interpretation, but can you see that it is just an interpretation, that our view here is based on a specific set of cultural assumptions?
@SpinyNorman Sure. I wasn't raised anywhere else. I know there are cultural biases and assumptions and what-not, which I try to overcome simply by seeing things as they are instead of worrying about all the different things people believe (even questioning what I was taught). It's how conditioned we are, and divided by that conditioning, that's a problem. I'm sure there's plenty I don't know, and I'm always open to being corrected.
For instance I'll correct myself: some Buddhists chant instead of meditating. I mean that I think meditation is important, but chanting may do the job too.
I could as easily be a Hindu and think all of this is nonsense. I use that same argument against religious people that can't see how "chance" their beliefs are.
...and that's why I've always been a non-believer in religions, up to the point of learning about Buddhism, which I view (and use) as a tool and not a belief system.
I think the Buddha would simply say that how well the 4NT & 8FP was being reflected in someones path, would be the measure of how well they followed his teachings, not whatever way they chose to adorn it.
In my humble opinion (and it's just that, an opinion) Buddhism is both a tool and belief system. At least how I apply it.
I was Hindu for about a year, but I feel the pull back to Buddhism. I feel that A.) what it teaches closely matches more with what I believe and B.) I find it to be more practically applicable to my life.
Which is why I'm asking about the more colorful aspects of Buddhism. It is what I'm bringing back from Hinduism (and what ultimately led me to Hinduism in the first place). I'm not one for 100% devotion, but devotion is nice when it is needed.
Those colourful aspects are certainly present in some schools. Did you have a particular school in mind, or just exploring the options?
Yeah lots of people use it that way, especially in the East. I only meant for myself and my own purposes.
A bit of both? I want to stress that I'm not looking into the more theistic/devotional/colorful schools for the sake of doing so, but because I feel the natural inclination towards them.
Ones that I've been studying into have been Tendai, Pure Land, Shingon (I would LOVE to study this one more, but it is rather obscure in the US), some streams of Tibetan like Jonang, or just generalized Mahayana.
For me it's a process and a tool. I'm not so sure it can serve as a belief system for myself because it teaches me how to see, not what to see.
The Tibetan Schools are usually quite colourful. Is there anything suitable in your local area that you know of?
In my current area, there is a Theravada and Pure Land temple. I'm really shooting for San Francisco for graduate school and they have a lot more sanghas out there. They even have a Shingon temple about an hour away, but I'm not too sure about the organization (Shingon Mikkyo Daikokuji).
@DaftChris I don't know if Zen would be something you'd like (you did say generalized Mahayana, and Soto Zen is Mahayana), but there's an online Soto Zen Sangha at http://www.treeleaf.org. I'm still learning what all they teach.
Just a minor correction. There are no Hindu or otherwise deities incorporated into Buddhism in Sri Lanka. In fact Buddhism there is as atheistic as it ever was.
But I can see where a Buddha or the Buddha would come down pretty harsh on the Sangha in SL.
I do not believe the lay people would be in much trouble for offering fruit to the sungods but the much of the sangha would get a pretty harsh shaving I am sure.
There are allegedly Arahants in SL and other places. If that is the case then the teaching (of the Arahant path) is pretty well preserved I would say?
/Victor
I think Buddha would be amused that people on an internet forum were asking how he would feel about the whole ordeal.
I can only speak for myself as a future Buddha (strange but true according to some). I have certainly missed the pointing out that the pointing is amiss . . .
This is a job for SuperCushion . . .
Kia Ora,
If Siddhartha Gautama lived today, he'd be a different Siddhartha Gautama than the one that lived 2500 years ago.
He would have a multi million dollar mega temple with his name in neon lights out front and drive a really flash European sports car (when he's not cruising the Caribbean on his luxury yacht or jetsetting around the world in his private jet) ...:D ..
On a more serious note...I think he would practice what he preached and just go with the flow of change " Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya.' (Nothing whatsoever should be clung to)....
Metta Shoshin .
..
It depends on whether Buddha was reborn in the East or West I would imagine.......
He would probably have a lot of "likes" on Facebook though.
Where does E get those wonderful cushions?
i assumed many were digital
The point about bolster cushions (yes it really is an anagram of lobster), pillow talk and other support structures such as meditations stools/chairs . . . and Buddhas is they are pragmatic means . . .
Just as some have different insights, methodologies and practices, the Buddha as dharmakaya changes according to circumstance.
So we can know exactly what the Buddha thinks when alive today.
Same old situation. Dukkha. Non essential clinging and ignorance abiding as ever . . .
The presentation always is the same in essence, it is just the cushion cover that changes . . .
:wave: .
Exactly. You have to sit on cushion for a while to really get the feel of it.
As long as the main objectives are followed I don't think Buddha would bother praising one school or lineage over another.
If he did or does come back on a life tour, I'd like to think he sees a progression but I'd imagine he'd keep a fairly low profile.
Buddha would not comment on the state of buddhism - he would smile, and not say anything. To say something would invite criticism - that's why there are no contemporaneous records of what the historical buddha said.
It's one thing to think of the historical Buddha suddenly being alive again today, and another to think of him being born in modern times and discovering enlightenment in the midst of our connected, technological world. Entirely different situations, those.
I have done a calculation as to the number of buddhas that may be in the world. It goes like this;)
The buddha said there were something like 184000 types of people or such-like. Let's say there are 7 000 000 000 people in the world. Lets say just one of those 184 000 are enlightened and entitled to call themselves buddhas. So by my reckoning... ... ...
7 000 000 000 divided by 184 000 = 38 043
There are probably 38 043 buddhas in the world, so all you gurus - your secret is pretty much safe for now.
I would like to believe there are really 7 000 000 000, but some haven't realised it yet, but that's delight in uncertainty!
... \ lol / ...