A New Buddhist Manifesto

Magwang

A New Buddhist Manifesto


This forum is obviously aimed at the novice Buddhist, but I would also suggest it is for the modern Buddhist. In that spirit, I am starting a discussion of Neo-Buddhism in the context of this new era of media, globalization, terrorism etc. Westerners are embracing Buddhism, but I think many are turned off by the Asian cultural baggage, the esoterica and the Hollywood trendiness. Many more could benefit from the Buddha's teaching (haven't we?), if only it were "marketed" better. I would like to be the first to speculate on what form that would take.

I Googled the term "Neo-Buddhism", and it apparently applies to an Indian movement from 1956 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Buddhism ). However, I believe that was more a revival, than a re-definition for the modern world.

Truth is timeless, regardless of the cultural or historical setting. And those with "a little dust in their eyes" may need our help to see the Dharma in a modern context, using relevant topics to the listener. For example, television and the internet did not exist in the Buddha's time, but if it did, what would he have to say about it?

When I browse the Buddhism section in bookstores, I am amazed at how many books there are, but so few are simple and easy to understand. I myself study the sutras, but I don't recommend them for the beginner. One of the few I recommend is "What the Buddha Taught" by Wapola Rahula.

So here goes....

Neo-Buddhism: the study of the Buddha's teachings in a modern context, with an entirely new canon based on issues facing the world in the 21st century. No more stories of oxen and such. Let's talk about suffering that everone can understand.

If Buddhists truly believe the dharma can solve problems, then world needs it now, more than ever.

Watch this space for more ideas...

Jason

While I agree with making the Buddha's teachings more understandable to the modern practitioner I would not agree with creating an entirely new canon.

I admit that I had great difficulty with the Suttas when I first began to read them, but the knowledge they contain is priceless. In my opinion there is nothing anyone could add to what the Buddha already taught. The path that he laid out for the freedom from dukkha is just as relavent today as it was 2500 years ago. I believe that people these days lack the effort to practice, not the understanding.

Just my view though.

federica

While I agree that Buddhism is somewhat complex if one tries to study it exclusively throught the Sutras, there is a wealth of literature provided today, by those in the position to know, which reaches out to the Common Man.... The Dalai Lama has availed himself of modern methods to explain and to teach: Thich Nhat Hahn is a world-wide respected Monk.... Sogyal Rinpoche was for me, my first Teacher, and lama Surya Das has done a great deal to reach the masses through his readable and anecdotal books.
To try to teach Buddhism using a modern slant on it is understandable - some might say commendable - but the Teachings are the Teachings, whether you learn via ancient manuscripts or via the modern miraculous wonder of the Internet. all things might be either used or abused - be it an oxen or a ferrari.....
I recently ordered a book by Joseph Goldstein titled 'One Dharma: The Emerging Western Buddhism' which I believe deals with this very subject.... watch this space.....?

Simonthepilgrim

I am attempting to read Dr Ambedkar's book The Buddha and His Dharma:
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_buddha/index.html#index

This is where he tells the story in what he assumed were 'contemporary' terms.

Interestingly, he does not take the Jefferson approach (see Jefferson Bible) of removing all miraculous events in order to leave the ethical and social Dharma.

In Christian evangelism, there has been a long tradition of what is now called "contextualisation" which consists of placing the gospel message within the socio-historical context of the audience. In many cases, this means that the evangelist must review the language used, recognising that many of the terms used are completely outwith the hearers' experience. The challenge then is to find language appropriate to the audience. Stories about Pharisees or Sadducees, Exodus or Messiah make no sense to those whose context does not include Jewish history (not that they make much sense to those who do, very often).

If we add to this the notions of a social or political message, we come to a form of hermeneutic (method of reading and interpreting) which has been called existential. Within this approach, scriptural texts are approached as challenges to the reader in their here-and-now experience in solidarity with our fellow humans and the world at large. It is this which I think Dr Ambedkar was seeing in the Dharma: not simply a recipe for 'enlightenment' but also a challenge to established order. His own origins among the harijans means that he was at the bottom of an enormous social pyramid which is (still) the Hindu caste system. The fact that Buddhists are perceived to be outside caste has great attraction for the poor and disinherited.

Even in his first chapter, describing the early legends of Gautama's birth, growing up and going forth, we find:

4. Siddharth was of kindly disposition. He did not like exploitation of man by man.
5. Once he went to his father's farm with some of his friends, and saw the labourers ploughing the land, raising bunds, cutting trees, etc., dressed in scanty clothes under a hot burning sun.
6. He was greatly moved by the sight.
7. He said to his friends, can it be right that one man should exploit another? How can it be right that the labourer should toil, and the master should live on the fruits of his labour?
8. His friends did not know what to say. For they believed in the old philosophy of life that the worker was born to serve, and that in serving his master he was only fulfilling his destiny.

As is apparent, and as he stresses in his preliminary remarks, Ambedkar does not follow the legend that the young noble was completely insulated from sights of suffering and death. He considers this legend to be nonsensical. Thus we have earlier experiences of encountering day-to-day reality. IMHO, a much more likely, non-miraculous approach.

Dr Ambedkar, addressing the renewed Buddhist community in India, is concerned with the impact of the Dharma on an Indian audience which makes his language and the form used soimewhat rebarbative but, underneath, we can see that he is in much the same mindset as the Western "Engaged Buddhists".

I have a lot more to read and I shall be inetersted to get to his deconstruction of the Four Noble Truths. These he calls the Aryan Truths and he says:

The second problem is created by the four Aryan Truths. Do they form part of the original teachings of the Buddha? This formula cuts at the root of Buddhism. If life is sorrow, death is sorrow, and rebirth is sorrow, then there is an end of everything. Neither religion nor philosophy can help a man to achieve happiness in the world. If there is no escape from sorrow, then what can religion do, what can Buddha do, to relieve man from such sorrow which is ever there in birth itself? The four Aryan Truths are a great stumbling block in the way of non-Buddhists accepting the gospel of Buddhism. For the four Aryan Truths deny hope to man. The four Aryan Truths make the gospel of the Buddha a gospel of pessimism. Do they form part of the original gospel, or are they a later accretion by the monks?
Introduction

Magwang

Elohim wrote:

While I agree with making the Buddha's teachings more understandable to the modern practitioner I would not agree with creating an entirely new canon.

I didn't literally mean create a new canon to replace anything that exists. I guess my post reads that way, doesn't it?

I was not putting down any specific document - it's all good. In fact, I read a LOT - I'm studying the Lotus Sutra right now (slowly and carefully) but also reading Dharma Punx (fast and angrily).

What I want to do is challenge ourselves as a sangha to put the Buddha's treachings up for examination - as he himself requested. Debate was common in the Buddha's sangha. It might even get controversial *gasp* :eek:

Let me pose the question a different way - does anyone here have a personal transcendant story that they would share, that has meaning to them. A unique experience that would touch someone else? A peak experience - a Zen moment, whatever. Now that's good dharma.

And thanks Elohim for the heads up...If I sound dismissive of cherished Sutras, I'm not. I take seriously all writings. But I reserve the right to examine anyone's teachings (even the Buddha's) to uncover its truth. That's what he taught.

Respectfully,

Magwang (Adam)

formerly LittleBenBuddha until I got sick of the handle. Time to grow up.

Magwang

Simonthepilgrim wrote:

I have a lot more to read and I shall be inetersted to get to his deconstruction of the Four Noble Truths. These he calls the Aryan Truths and he says...

Very interesting, Simon. You've hit on a good example (maybe the most important one?) of what I am talking about.

Jason

Magwang,

I agree with what you are saying when you put it that way.

I have also read Dharma Punx. I find it very interesting. I picked it up because I am currently living in Noah Levine's old home town where the majority of the book takes place.

I really agree that we should challenge ourselves as a sangha to put the Buddha's treachings up for examination, however, that requires that we practice what he taught and not just debate it. That's the hard part.

I unfortunately do not have any good "Zen moments" to share. My practice has been a long and gradual one. All the insights I've gained have arisen unnoticed for the most part. One day I might find that I react differently to a situation, or see an idea with an entirely different point of view, but it never appears to me that I'm any different or have transcended anything.

I do not have any unique stories that will touch or inspire anyone, but I can offer that I am much happier with my life now than I was before I began my journey down the Buddha's Path.

Magwang

Elohim wrote:

I really agree that we should challenge ourselves as a sangha to put the Buddha's treachings up for examination, however, that requires that we practice what he taught and not just debate it. That's the hard part.

Practice is paramount, especially meditiation. No question.

But debate or controvery can be fun, even insightful. For example, I'll raise a topic that's to me very personal, transcendent, contemporary, probably controversial and arguably Buddhist in nature.

My first religious experience at age 20 was on an acid trip.

[let that sink in]

Controversial: Yes, it was drug-induced, but it profoundly changed me. I was not whacked out of my head - the dosage was actually small. Say what you want, but it meant something to me, opening up new ways of thinking. In total, I took about 6 trips over a 2 year period around 1980, and none since.

Transcendant: It was like a catalyst, that resulted in a deep, blissful silence that opened my eyes and my heart. I was never the same after that. I actually learned something about myself that day. As someone said on Six Feet Under, "We can be conditioned up the wazoo, but how often do we really learn something?".

Personal: It's hard to talk about it - it seems sophomoric and frat-boyish, but to me it's meaningful. I cannot advocate drug use, but something happened up to me. It would take another 20 years for me to stumble upon the Buddhadharma. It's hard to explain, because...well you had to be there.

Contemporary: Yes, booze existed in the Buddha's day, but never in the history of mankind has there been a mind-altering substance that's as powerful as LSD. In fact, drugs are a uniquely human problem. Big topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD

Buddhist in nature: While most Buddhists would dismiss the drug-induced state as maya (which of course it is) that's missing the point. What's important is the shift in perception that took place. Does it matter what whacks us upside the head, as long as it happens? I don't dwell on it - it seems long ago now.



...

Magwang.

...