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.
By the way, Jinzang, I am interested in your quote - how do you see the interpretation of it? Thanks.
Ego isn't the problem so much. The problem is that we live in ego's world. Ego is unhappy when the meditation doesn't go well and happy when it does. Ego hopes for the day when it will become enlightened and fears that it won't. So practice gets sucked into ego's world along with everything else.
It's a lot like a fearful person lives in a fearful world. The difference is that a fearful person knows others who aren't afraid the way they are, so at an intellectual level they know the falseness of their fears. But few have met a person who doesn't play ego's games. That's one reason having a teacher is so important and so powerful.
There are different methods to work with this and I believe a lot of the differences between Buddhist traditions represent different skillful means. One technique is simply boredom, to continue practicing when you want to do something, anything else. And that's another reason having a teacher and a community of fellow practitioners is important, so you can bore each other silly.
Ego isn't the problem so much. The problem is that we live in ego's world. Ego is unhappy when the meditation doesn't go well and happy when it does. Ego hopes for the day when it will become enlightened and fears that it won't. So practice gets sucked into ego's world along with everything else.
It's a lot like a fearful person lives in a fearful world. The difference is that a fearful person knows others who aren't afraid the way they are, so at an intellectual level they know the falseness of their fears. But few have met a person who doesn't play ego's games. That's one reason having a teacher is so important and so powerful.
There are different methods to work with this and I believe a lot of the differences between Buddhist traditions represent different skillful means. One technique is simply boredom, to continue practicing when you want to do something, anything else. And that's another reason having a teacher and a community of fellow practitioners is important, so you can bore each other silly.
Very well explained, thankyou.
<<But few have met a person who doesn't play ego's games.>>
Yes - I know a few and they all blew me away by being who they were. My teacher included - he doesn't entertain me that way unfortunately - or fortunately depending on which way you look at it.
Thanks again, Jinzang - very helpful and enjoyed the way you relayed it.
Jinzang: 'No one is saying you have to follow the Vajrayana path of devotion. We're merely explaining why other people do'.
I never thought you meant otherwise.
'If you're willing to take the risk, devotion can speed your progress'.
Haven't I answered this already- in several posts?
Palzang: 'The reason most Westerners in particular react so strongly to the idea of devotion is that devotion represents a strong attack on ego, so people respond with fear'.
Didn't I answer this in my very first post?
C'mon guys:cool:
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited May 2009
(yeh, but you know... sometimes people don't read 'back'.... it might be annoying, but there it is......
Well, you didn't actually address the fear that ego projects to protect itself in your first post, but anyway...
Since you don't like the way I put it, let me try a different approach. Do you have any experience with 12 step programs? If you do, then you would know that they have a strong emphasis on having a sponsor, someone who has already walked the path to sobriety and can help guide the sponsoree on his path because, let's face it, few if any drunks (or whatever the addiction of choice is) can straighten themselves out. Most come to a 12 step program after having promised (with all good intentions) to quit a million times - and failed each time to keep the promise. So they need to have a sponsor to keep them on the straight and narrow. Only that way do they have a hope of attaining sobriety, though even then not all make it.
It's like that with the Dharma. We've been bouncing around the wheel of death and rebirth for countless lifetimes since time out of mind and have yet to come up with the solution yet. Reading a book on Dharma or getting together with other ignorant sentient beings isn't going to do it either. Oh, there might be a little progress, or there might (more likely) just be an increase in confusion and delusion. Just like a bunch of drunks getting together to talk about how to get sober. Likely to happen? I don't think so.
That's why a teacher is so strongly emphasized in Vajrayana. It is especially important on this path because many of the practices that are undertaken can be extremely dangerous if not done under the guidance of a qualified teacher. It's the same basic principle as the 12 Steps. You need someone who has walked the path and accomplished it to guide you along so that you avoid the missteps and pitfalls that we otherwise wouldn't pick up on. Make sense so far?
So now we get to devotion. Without devotion, we wouldn't really give a rat's patoot what our teacher told us. We'd just keep sailing along in our little delusions happy as a pig in you-know-what. If one instead develops devotion in the teacher (not the person, but what the teacher is teaching), then one will pay attention to instructions and follow them. Doing that will produce the desired result. Failure to do so will most likely result in catastrophe and just further suffering on the wheel.
It's important to point out that it isn't devotion to a person or a personality. It's devotion to the teachings that come from the mind of enlightenment through the teacher. That doesn't mean that just because the teacher likes chocolate ice cream that I have to also. It is devotion that is our mainstay and our joy. A better word for it might be recognition, recognition that this is the truth and that following the truth will lead to liberation.
So you ask, how is one to know if it's truth or just another deception? The only way you can tell, to be frank, is by trusting your own gut. That's the ultimate test. Sure, there are guideposts like lineage and recognition and so forth, but ultimately there is no one to make the decision except you yourself. There is no magic pill you can take that'll make the decision for you (no wonder Westerners are so afraid of it!). It's just you. If it's too scary, don't do it!
Everybody says these practices are so dangerous, but what are the dangers, exactly? Yeah, vicci hells, etc., but can the risks be expressed in terms of practical effects on day to day life?
I wasn't really thinking about hell. They are dangerous because you can easily drive yourself insane if you play with these practices without guidance. I've seen it happen more times than I care to remember actually. One person put himself on a 3 year retreat (don't every do that!) with no guidance and came out of it thinking he was Guru Rinpoche himself. In reality, though, he was severely deluded to a pathological level. These practices are potent. Doing them without proper guidance would be like sending a five year old out in a Grand Prix race car and telling him to have at it. That's what I mean by dangerous. They're not dangerous, however, if you do them with a qualified master. Then they're only dangerous to your ego!
So the principal danger is that in a practice involving personal identification with a deity, a practitioner might come to regard this identification as reality?
I feel I must object to this veneration business. Someone above defined 'veneration' as simply being 'respect', but to that I'd say, if what you really mean is 'respect', then just say 'respect'! I have no problem respecting anyone who deserves it, but veneration, with all its connotations of bowing and scraping and cringing, is quite a different story.
I'm with Prometheus on this. I know when I feel gratitude and respect for someone because it comes from somewhere real. I don't make much of an outward show, but it's there.
Doing it 'to order' is not for me.
Being told that tears should well up everytime...
...okay, slice me an onion and I just might be able to join in. :crazy:
So the principal danger is that in a practice involving personal identification with a deity, a practitioner might come to regard this identification as reality?
No, it's more like the ego is very slippery and you can easily fool yourself into some sort of pseudo-blissed out state so that you think you're enlightened when you're really just more seriously deluded than when you started. You end up basically creating your own religion with no basis in sanity.
I'm with Prometheus on this. I know when I feel gratitude and respect for someone because it comes from somewhere real. I don't make much of an outward show, but it's there.
Doing it 'to order' is not for me.
Being told that tears should well up everytime...
...okay, slice me an onion and I just might be able to join in. :crazy:
Nor do I, for the umpteen hundreth time. Is anybody paying attention here?
Hello Palzang,
Well, you didn't actually address the fear that ego projects to protect itself in your first post, but anyway...
Ok, but I'll just say that I've given you some real reasons that people like myself don't like venerationism, and to ignore that and decide for yourself what people's real reasons are for not liking it (i.e. fear for ego) is just creating a strawman and doesn't further debate.
That's why a teacher is so strongly emphasized in Vajrayana. It is especially important on this path because many of the practices that are undertaken can be extremely dangerous if not done under the guidance of a qualified teacher. It's the same basic principle as the 12 Steps. You need someone who has walked the path and accomplished it to guide you along so that you avoid the missteps and pitfalls that we otherwise wouldn't pick up on. Make sense so far?
Yes yes...
So now we get to devotion. Without devotion, we wouldn't really give a rat's patoot what our teacher told us.
Ah. Maybe it's just me, but I don't need to venerate someone to care about what they have to say. I don't know if it's occurred to you since you wrote your post, but the sponsors in the 12 step programs - that you so brilliantly cited in support of the usefulness of a guide - don't receive devotion or veneration from the people they're helping. And yet, the 12 step programs work... maybe because it's not devotion that's needed to make us care about what someone tells us, it's simply a willingness to take advice from someone with greater experience in dealing with a problem than you.
It's important to point out that it isn't devotion to a person or a personality. It's devotion to the teachings that come from the mind of enlightenment through the teacher.
This almost sounds like what I was suggesting before... devotion to an Ideal above your ego rather than to a person. This would be fine- venerate an Ideal, take guidance from a teacher; but it's when the Ideal and the teacher get mixed up together, such that you're venerating the Ideal through the person of the teacher, that in practice still leads to all the concerns that I've aired in my previous posts on this thread.
Peace:)
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited May 2009
Ah, of course.
The old "moon and Finger" thing......;)
I am new here and find this thread interesting -- for me the cultural appropriation of various Asian Buddhist traditions by affluent and individualistic Westerners is always going to be problematic. Because I live in Africa and work amongst people living with Aids and struggling with poverty and drought and violence, suffering is very 'real'.
When I was staying in the UK I noted that material comforts and a relatively pampered existence can mask the nature of suffering until the day you find you have inoperable cancer or lose a beloved child or find yourself unemployed and homeless or trapped in addiction.
Each of us will endure one terrible day when we sit down and ask ourselves "What is the meaning of this life now? How can I bear to go on?" Suffering is the key problem or illusion we need to deal with. We may not realise it but we are already out in that terrifying ocean searching for a raft to help us reach the shore. There is no time to lose. Impermanence is the only reality we will know in this life. All around us others are waking to find themselves dying, facing Alzheimers, lost in depression, uncertain about the meaning of life, in a tunnel with no light at the end. What do we have to offer those we love and care for as they suffer and struggle?
The ongoing adaptation and inculturation of Buddhist teachings will continue to be problematic -- but the questions around suffering and death will always bring us back to certain quests and lasting truths.
Hiya all,
I believe I don't qualify as a Buddhist. I don't know what I am, let alone need a particular label. My path to liberation or Moksha is through deep love, respect and some veneration of the teachers that have come before me and the wisdom they have set down. My bowing down to them is to show gratitude and love for the work they have done. I don't regard this as "blind" devotion to whom they were/are and what they represent, its an understanding that they have walked a particular path, they have suffered the highs and lows, and through their love they are passing on these teachings to me (though of course not only me!!!). For this I am eternally grateful. Its a personal "truth". Thus I dedicate my life and all that i have been, am and will be to them, in the belief that by following the example they set down I will be liberated, from all forms of delusion and come to know my true self.
This is my cents worth.
Well, Esau, I think you have some good cents! It really doesn't matter if you call yourself a Buddhist or not. Like my teacher says, the only thing that's important is that you attain liberation, not what label you put on yourself.
The article made some good points that strongly agree with my experiences. However, the author reveals some ignorance of a few key points. For example, even joyful and pleasant times fit in the Buddha's definition of dukkha simply because they are impermanent. There is at least one sutta in which the pleasures and rewards of the householder's life are partially listed. They aren't criticized or minimized; they are recognized as what they are: passing pleasures. Chasing after them and attaching to them only make it that much harder to perceive the full extent of anatta. Perceiving anatta and paticca samuppada tends towards the goal, which is to see things as they really are, and subsequently be released from the cycle of craving-obtaining-craving again, particularly wrt being. This bit of teaching was directed at leading the Buddha's Brahmic-influenced listeners to realizing that the self is a temporary set of flowing phenomena, and that there is no eternal Brahma/self, no eternal relief to be attained through rites and ceremonies.
Buddhism does indeed need to be reformed, but not only to modernize it. In many ways, it needs to be reformed in order to make it match what the Buddha actually taught. Here in Korea, and in Thailand where I was temporarily ordained, monks routinely deal in the fortunetelling and good-luck amulet markets, both of which were forbidden in the Vinaya.
Certainly, we in the West should dispense with the superstitious and supernatural aspects of practice, but we should be compassionate with those in Asia who are still caught up in the pre-Scientific Englightenment mindset. It's only natural that the ideas and practices of modern Asian people would be conditioned by the many centuries of their cultural history. The way we Western people think is no different in this respect.
So, while we apply scientific knowledge and principles to our interpretation of the Buddha's teachings, we would be wise to keep in mind the value of compassion towards those who see things differently from us, including those in the West who disagree with us. Keep in mind that the person who sees things differently is no more/less of a self than you are, and if you understand paticca samuppada, you'll see that there are legitimate reasons (conditions) that account for the wide diversity of understandings and descriptions of the way things really are. There's more than a little wisdom in the Buddha's advice to respond to such things with, "Why would you expect it to be different?"
I've been thinking a lot about how others see reality and how many different ways there are to see it. I used to wish everyone thought like me.
Now that I'm growing up I'm realizing diverse understandings are inevitable. I'm just not sure why.
So my next move is to have a look at paticca samuppada, as you pointed out, and maybe I'll find out.
I've been thinking a lot about how others see reality and how many different ways there are to see it. I used to wish everyone thought like me.
Now that I'm growing up I'm realizing diverse understandings are inevitable. I'm just not sure why.
So my next move is to have a look at paticca samuppada, as you pointed out, and maybe I'll find out.
Thanks!
Glad you got something out of it! One of the most mind-relaxing, stress-reducing aphorisms I've ever read came from Ajahn Chah, something to the effect of, 'If things were supposed to be different, they would be.'
:thumbsup: I'm looking forward to having more time to catch up on all that's been written here so far. I'm still a noob here, but I'll try to catch up.
The article made some good points that strongly agree with my experiences. However, the author reveals some ignorance of a few key points. For example, even joyful and pleasant times fit in the Buddha's definition of dukkha simply because they are impermanent. There is at least one sutta in which the pleasures and rewards of the householder's life are partially listed. They aren't criticized or minimized; they are recognized as what they are: passing pleasures. Chasing after them and attaching to them only make it that much harder to perceive the full extent of anatta. Perceiving anatta and paticca samuppada tends towards the goal, which is to see things as they really are, and subsequently be released from the cycle of craving-obtaining-craving again, particularly wrt being. This bit of teaching was directed at leading the Buddha's Brahmic-influenced listeners to realizing that the self is a temporary set of flowing phenomena, and that there is no eternal Brahma/self, no eternal relief to be attained through rites and ceremonies.
Buddhism does indeed need to be reformed, but not only to modernize it. In many ways, it needs to be reformed in order to make it match what the Buddha actually taught. Here in Korea, and in Thailand where I was temporarily ordained, monks routinely deal in the fortunetelling and good-luck amulet markets, both of which were forbidden in the Vinaya.
Certainly, we in the West should dispense with the superstitious and supernatural aspects of practice, but we should be compassionate with those in Asia who are still caught up in the pre-Scientific Englightenment mindset. It's only natural that the ideas and practices of modern Asian people would be conditioned by the many centuries of their cultural history. The way we Western people think is no different in this respect.
So, while we apply scientific knowledge and principles to our interpretation of the Buddha's teachings, we would be wise to keep in mind the value of compassion towards those who see things differently from us, including those in the West who disagree with us. Keep in mind that the person who sees things differently is no more/less of a self than you are, and if you understand paticca samuppada, you'll see that there are legitimate reasons (conditions) that account for the wide diversity of understandings and descriptions of the way things really are. There's more than a little wisdom in the Buddha's advice to respond to such things with, "Why would you expect it to be different?"
I agree, FBM. The Vinaya has become seriously degraded in many places in Asia. In Mongolia, for example, when the peaceful revolution took place and the country moved away from Communism in the early 1990s, people were free to practice Buddhism openly again. Many took advantage of this, calling themselves monks and dressing up like them but having no understanding of what being a monk meant. There were, as you say, fortune tellers and other charlatans surrounding the few old temples that remained from 65 years of brutal communist repression. Seeing "monks" drunk in the streets was a common occurrence, and many visited prostitutes openly. It was a bad scene. By the time I got there in 2005, things had been cleaned up a lot, but there were still major problems. Many temples would have menus of prayers they would do for certain problems, like marriages, deaths, births, family problems, etc, with prices accordingly. Then the practices would be performed by these "monks" (who weren't really monks) who knew how to read Tibetan, but had no idea what the words meant. So they were selling Dharma and performing useless, meaningless prayers for people, preying on their gullibility. It's no wonder that Mormons and other pseudo-Xian cults are making headway there.
It's also important to keep that awareness alive here in the West where Buddhist monasticism is just taking hold. We need to be vigiliant to maintain the purity of the lineage while adapting to life in the West. We also have to deal with the difficulty of holding one's robes in this Western desire realm where we are constantly being bombarded by the temptations of desire and gross materialism. It's not an easy task, and one that requires constant attention on the part of whoever is ordained. There are already a number of bogus groups around who have pretend monks and nuns who have no clue what the Vinaya even is, much less what it says, such as the so-called "Church of Shambhala" or the New Kadampas whose monks do not live according to the Vinaya and who follow a false teacher. Whether or not Buddhist monasticism will even survive here in the West or whether it will be swallowed up in watered down spirituality and false teachings remains an open question.
Glad you got something out of it! One of the most mind-relaxing, stress-reducing aphorisms I've ever read came from Ajahn Chah, something to the effect of, 'If things were supposed to be different, they would be.'
I love Ajahn Chah. He's the reason I chose the Thai Forest Tradition. Since I don't have a formal teacher of my own I consider him to be my teacher. He came out with some real zingers, didn't he?
I love Ajahn Chah. He's the reason I chose the Thai Forest Tradition. Since I don't have a formal teacher of my own I consider him to be my teacher. He came out with some real zingers, didn't he?
He sure did! I was ordained in his lineage. Most of the things written by acclaimed 'masters', in Thailand and elsewhere, seem to just parrot what was written by others before them. When I read No Ajahn Chah, a book of his aphorisms, I really get the feeling that he actually understood for himself the way things are.
Palzang,
The second-largest order in Korea not only allows monks to marry, but also to have jobs, etc. They have a college that I looked into once. Some of the courses taught are things like geomancy, numerology, fortunetelling, etc. :-/
In fairness to them, though, they state up front that they don't follow the Vinaya. Their goal, at least ostensibly, is to integrate Buddhist principles and practices into the everyday home life of Buddhists and society at large. That part is hard to argue with, as long as they mean 'real' Buddhist principles and practices, not the hocus-pocus part.
I've been thinking a lot about how others see reality and how many different ways there are to see it. I used to wish everyone thought like me.
Now that I'm growing up I'm realizing diverse understandings are inevitable. I'm just not sure why.
................
Boo, dearheart,
This is a crucial understanding and one that opens our hearts and minds to true benevolence towards those who think, believe and act differently from ourselves. The Q'ran, for example, teaches that, when a person is killed, a whole world dies: i.e. each one of us experiences the universe in a unique way and, as a result, each one of us is uniquely valuable.
At age 23, I was asking one of my professors about his beliefs as a Quaker (oh! how cheeky: he was in his 60s, and a respected educationalist). He said: "Forget all the doctrine and dogma. The truth is that you are unique; you are uniquely valuable; you have never been seen before nor wioll be seen again. And I meet God in you." I was bowled over. Still am - however much my notion of 'God' may have changed.
Try it some time: as you move among other people, think it to yourself as you look at each one: "In you I meet the compassionate Ground of being" - it's mind-blowing.
I don't know how 'Buddhist' it may be but all I read of the Buddha's encounters with individuals suggests to me that he recognised, in each one, the unique manifestation of BuddhaNature.
...we should be compassionate with those in Asia who are still caught up in the pre-Scientific Englightenment mindset.
Personally, I do not regard the issue here as greatly Asian. At least in Thailand, the monks do not push Buddhism onto laypeople. The lay people's understanding of Buddhism is generally weak and passive.
However, in the West, superstition in Buddhism is definitely growing.
In the early days, Buddhism to the West focused upon practical teachings, such as those by Lama Yese, Chogram Trunpga, Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Sumedho, Ajahn Buddhadasa, Joseph & Jack, etc.
However, now the evangelical rebirth movement is growing very strong.
An example is in Australia, we have Ajahn Brahm, Sujato and their chronies controlling Buddhist dissemination. Although they declare themselves to be part of the Ajahn Chah lineage, they are pushing rebirth very strong and teaching The Four Noble Truths & Dependent Origination as doctrines of rebirth.
Often, we talk about "Buddhism" without realising its doctrines are perpetuated and defined by very few individuals. For example, those one or two monks who translate from the Pali.
In brief, superstition in Western Buddhism is growing rather than declining.
The original teachers theorised the West was ready for scientific Buddhism but the new teachers have realised their alms bowls prefer superstition.
Many Western Buddhists are so engrossed in rebirth that they do not even understand the basics of practice (regarding mindfulness & wisdom at sense contact).
Personally, I do not regard the issue here as greatly Asian. At least in Thailand, the monks do not push Buddhism onto laypeople. The lay people's understanding of Buddhism is generally weak and passive...
Largely true, however I once saw a Buddhist theme park in Thailand that focused on 'scaring kids straight' with very gruesome, horrible and terrifying paintings and bloody statues of souls being tortured in Buddhist 'hells'. However, like you say, that was nothing evangelistic. Everyone involved was already Buddhist. Still...:eek:
However, now the evangelical rebirth movement is growing very strong.
An example is in Australia, we have ... pushing rebirth very strong and teaching The Four Noble Truths & Dependent Origination as doctrines of rebirth.
:facepalm:
Often, we talk about "Buddhism" without realising its doctrines are perpetuated and defined by very few individuals. For example, those one or two monks who translate from the Pali.
Yes, wholeheartedly agreed. That's why I bought up the Pali Canon for myself (in English, though) and compare different translations of key suttas. Blind faith in one's teacher, however sincere and well-meaning, is no way to go.
In brief, superstition in Western Buddhism is growing rather than declining.
The original teachers theorised the West was ready for scientific Buddhism but the new teachers have realised their alms bowls prefer superstition.
Many Western Buddhists are so engrossed in rebirth that they do not even understand the basics of practice (regarding mindfulness & wisdom at sense contact).
I was afraid of that. I've been in Asia so long I'm not really up-to-date on how the West is dealing with Buddhism. However, from what I read on certain Buddhist forums, it's not something I want to be involved in. Seems that a few big players are hedging on anatta, and allowing uninformed-yet-enthusiastic devouts (read: donors) to cling to the belief that there is something resembling what is conventionally understood as a person's individual identity that gets reborn into a future life.
They also seem to hide behind obsure Pali vocabulary and use it to browbeat neophytes and keep them guessing. :downhand:
However, now the evangelical rebirth movement is growing very strong.
An example is in Australia, we have Ajahn Brahm, Sujato and their chronies controlling Buddhist dissemination. Although they declare themselves to be part of the Ajahn Chah lineage, they are pushing rebirth very strong and teaching The Four Noble Truths & Dependent Origination as doctrines of rebirth.
So is your mission here to bad mouth every monk and lay-person who doesn't have the same understanding of Buddhism as you do?
So is your mission here to bad mouth every monk and lay-person who doesn't have the same understanding of Buddhism as you do?
Personally, I have alot of gratitude towards Buddha-Dhamma. This is because there was once a time I was completely disillusioned with life and had profound existential suffering. Then, one day, in my travels, I walked into a Buddhist monastery and four months later had fullness of satisfaction and then ending of any kind of doubt regarding life.
Buddha taught his Dhamma is for the cessation of suffering. Whilst the Buddha had to conform to Indian society by teaching things to support pre-existing beliefs, of his own teachings he said I teach only two things, namely, suffering & freedom from suffering.
When one witnesses playing and tampering with the medicine or, more so, witnesses more intellectly inclined Westerners turning medicine into theories to support their craving for existence and ego, the gratitude turns to painful vedana.
When we know dukkha and its end, our view will change.
Until then, our folly makes confusion for ourself & others.
Personally, I do not regard the issue here as greatly Asian. At least in Thailand, the monks do not push Buddhism onto laypeople. The lay people's understanding of Buddhism is generally weak and passive.
However, in the West, superstition in Buddhism is definitely growing.
In the early days, Buddhism to the West focused upon practical teachings, such as those by Lama Yese, Chogram Trunpga, Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Sumedho, Ajahn Buddhadasa, Joseph & Jack, etc.
However, now the evangelical rebirth movement is growing very strong.
An example is in Australia, we have Ajahn Brahm, Sujato and their chronies controlling Buddhist dissemination. Although they declare themselves to be part of the Ajahn Chah lineage, they are pushing rebirth very strong and teaching The Four Noble Truths & Dependent Origination as doctrines of rebirth.
Often, we talk about "Buddhism" without realising its doctrines are perpetuated and defined by very few individuals. For example, those one or two monks who translate from the Pali.
In brief, superstition in Western Buddhism is growing rather than declining.
The original teachers theorised the West was ready for scientific Buddhism but the new teachers have realised their alms bowls prefer superstition.
Many Western Buddhists are so engrossed in rebirth that they do not even understand the basics of practice (regarding mindfulness & wisdom at sense contact).
Very well said, Dhamma D., very well said.
The only thing that I could add would be to point out that superstitions die hard.
After all, Christianity is still around, even though it's interacted with science far longer than Buddhism has.
I love Ajahn Chah. He's the reason I chose the Thai Forest Tradition. Since I don't have a formal teacher of my own I consider him to be my teacher. He came out with some real zingers, didn't he?
I love Ajahn Chah and the teachers of the Thai Forest Tradition too, Brigid. Ven Ajahn Chah's directness first attracted me to his teachings a year or two ago
Although I've been an offline practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism for a long time I don't consider investigating the Thai Forest Tradition to be a problem. I'm very lucky in that the Monastery of Ven Ajahn Sumedho is accessible to me here in the UK - and I have already been there to investigate and to meditate in the shrine room of the temple. I hope to return for an interview with Ven Sumedho within the next 2 months. The secretary told me it can be arranged, so I'm really looking forward to that !:)
There's a big difference between addressing an uncomfortable truth and "badmouthing".
Learn it. :cool:
And what, pray tell, is the "uncomfortable truth" of Ajahn Brahmavamso? That he teaches rebirth? In my experience, most monastics do. I've yet to met one who didn't.
Or that he's "controlling Buddhist dissemination" like some sort of insidious Buddhist mafioso? Please. He doesn't force anybody to listen to his talks or read his books. One is just as free to pick up something by Ajahn Buddhadasa.
One doesn't need to go around saying disparaging things about others who happen to teach rebirth just because one disagrees with it. Attack the ideas, not the person.
I love Ajahn Chah and the teachers of the Thai Forest Tradition too, Brigid. Ven Ajahn Chah's directness first attracted me to his teachings a year or two ago
Although I've been an offline practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism for a long time I don't consider investigating the Thai Forest Tradition to be a problem. I'm very lucky in that the Monastery of Ven Ajahn Sumedho is accessible to me here in the UK - and I have already been there to investigate and to meditate in the shrine room of the temple. I hope to return for an interview with Ven Sumedho within the next 2 months. The secretary told me it can be arranged, so I'm really looking forward to that !:)
_/\_
How wonderful, Dazzle! I'm so happy for you that you're going to be able to meet and talk with Ajahn Sumedho.
I'm very lucky too because there's a Thai Forest monastery called Tisarana about an hour and a half from where I live. The abbot is Ajahn Viradhammo whose teaching style I really like. I visited the monastery last summer and it was great. As I was walking up the path to the house I saw a monk in his ocher robes feeding an apple to a large deer.
The original teachers theorised the West was ready for scientific Buddhism but the new teachers have realised their alms bowls prefer superstition.
"Scientific Buddhism" is just as superstitious as any other 'brand' of Buddhism, as it's only another stance keen to demonstrate its superiority. The Dharma is experiential at its core, thus nihilists of various hues will never be any nearer to it than eternalists.
..........................
Buddha taught his Dhamma is for the cessation of suffering. Whilst the Buddha had to conform to Indian society by teaching things to support pre-existing beliefs, of his own teachings he said I teach only two things, namely, suffering & freedom from suffering.
When one witnesses playing and tampering with the medicine or, more so, witnesses more intellectly inclined Westerners turning medicine into theories to support their craving for existence and ego, the gratitude turns to painful vedana.
When we know dukkha and its end, our view will change.
Until then, our folly makes confusion for ourself & others.
:cool:
I think you raise an interesting point, DD, and one which I have considered in respect of each spiritual discipline I have examined: the questions of historico-cultural conditioning and context.
Is it possible to remove the Buddha or the Christ or the Prophet from their context? It is certainly what the Jefferson recension does with the Gospels. It is the attitude which says: "I don't like what, today, appears to me to be superstitious, so I will dismiss it." The way in which you phrase this, "the Buddha had to conform to Indian society by teaching things to support pre-existing beliefs", implies that the historical Buddha could have turned the Wheel of Dharma in any other way, in some non-contextualised way.
I would suggest that this is to misunderstand the reality of socio-economic context as formative, particularly as it impacts on language, which is the main way in which the message has come down to us.
Let us be honest: we may not like early Buddhist 'superstition', it may not fit with our own, post-Enlightenment, post-Nietzschean world view but don't let us pretend that, in some mysterious way, the teaching Buddha (or Jesus or Mohammed) were outside their own historical context. Nor, I suggest, should we imagine that our own peculiar take on the Dharma insofar as it differs from that of our brothers and sisters elsewhere and elsewhen is truer - it may be more useful for some for a while, nothing more.
And what, pray tell, is the "uncomfortable truth" of Ajahn Brahmavamso?
Jason
The uncomfortable truth is those who are genuinely searching for the way end to suffering are turned away.
The uncomfortable truth is the medicine of the Buddha becomes hidden or lost or one must join the "inner sanctum" of a secret monastic order to find the medicine.
As I already advised you Jason, the Buddha taught for the single goal of the cessation of suffering.
Now pray tell, please list the benefits of ascribing to your rebirth view?
Now pray tell, why do you fight the supramundane dhamma?
As a learned Theravadin, I would expect you understand each day the homage chanting about the Dhamma is "sanditiko, akaliko, ehipasiko, opaniyko, paccatam veditibo vinnuhi", namely, "apparent here & now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, leading onewards [to Nibbana], to be experienced by the wise for themselves".
There is no blind faith or theory ascribed here friend.
Are you not concerned with tampering with the medicine another may need (when you cannot percieve a need for yourself)?
There are two kinds is sickness. Not knowing one is sick and knowing one is sick.
In the Buddha's time, he did not teach the noble truths and dependent origination friviously.
To children, he taught suttas like MN 135 but did not teach the noble truths and dependent origination.
"Scientific Buddhism" is just as superstitious as any other 'brand' of Buddhism, as it's only another stance keen to demonstrate its superiority. The Dharma is experiential at its core, thus nihilists of various hues will never be any nearer to it than eternalists.
It's not called the middle way for nothing.
Namaste
Kris
Kris
Scientific Buddhism means that which is verifiable. This is what the Buddha taught, when he said:
“Good, bhikkhus. So you have been guided by me with this dhamma, which is directly visible (sandikka), timeless (akalika), verifiable (ehipassika), leading onwards (opaneyyika), to be individually experienced by the wise (paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi). For it was with reference to this that it has been said: ‘Bhikkhus, this dhamma is directly visible, timeless, verifiable, leading onwards, to be individually experienced by the wise.’
As for your words about 'nihilist' and 'eternalist', these are irrelevent to the discussion given your understanding of this words appears inaccurate.
Is it possible to remove the Buddha or the Christ or the Prophet from their context?
Simon
The Buddha already removed himself from his cultural context. There is no need for us to do that.
The Buddha divided his teaching into two kinds: core & non-core; unique and not-unique; transcendant & mundane.
When the Buddha referred to the "special message of the Buddhas", this was the Four Noble Truths.
When the Buddha referred to "words of the Tatagatha", this was emptiness (sunyata).
When the Buddha referred to his teachings which were "blameless & irrefutable", this was the elements, sense spheres and the noble truths.
As Western society is not Indian society, the unique, transcendent & core teachings are free from any form of cultural context or need.
However, the teachings of Jesus are not like this. Jesus did not divide his teachings into two sorts.
The teachings of Jesus are inseparable from the notion of "God" where as the Buddha himself divorced his core teachings from the notion of rebirth and unverified doctrine.
"the Buddha had to conform to Indian society by teaching things to support pre-existing beliefs", implies that the historical Buddha could have turned the Wheel of Dharma in any other way, in some non-contextualised way.
No Simon. This is not implied.
The Buddha did turn the Wheel of Dharma completely divorced from cultural context, when he preached the 1st, 2nd & 3rd sermons.
The cultural context entered into the Buddha's teachings after his fame; after the ordinary man, kings, various sectarians, etc, began to request teachings from him.
If you study the suttas, you will find in most settings, the Buddha answered the questions asked of him. People would approach him and ask: "We wish to be reborn in a heavenly world".
The mundane non-core teachings of the Buddha are generally responses to pre-existing beliefs.
I would suggest that this is to misunderstand the reality of socio-economic context as formative, particularly as it impacts on language, which is the main way in which the message has come down to us.
I have already rejected you suggetion Simon because it does not apply.
Let us be honest: we may not like early Buddhist 'superstition', it may not fit with our own, post-Enlightenment, post-Nietzschean world view
No Simon. That is not the case, as I have explained. I would suggest you try to learn more about Buddhism rather than seek to incorporate it into a quagmire (spelling ?) of philosphical and religious views.
but don't let us pretend that, in some mysterious way, the teaching Buddha (or Jesus or Mohammed) were outside their own historical context.
There is nothing to "pretend" about Simon, as I have already established.
The Buddha's core teachings address the universal human condition of suffering. They are completely mind based and free from any cultural context.
And what, pray tell, is the "uncomfortable truth" of Ajahn Brahmavamso? That he teaches rebirth? In my experience, most monastics do. I've yet to met one that didn't.
Or that he's "controlling Buddhist dissemination" like some sort of insidious Buddhist mafioso? Please. He doesn't force anybody to listen to his talks or read his books. One is just as free to pick up something by Ajahn Buddhadasa.
One doesn't need to go around saying disparaging things about others who happen to teach rebirth just because one disagrees with it. Attack the ideas, not the person.
It's not at all that he teaches rebirth, and you know it. It's that he ignorantly misrepresents and rants against those who do not, encouraging others like you to do the same.
It's not at all that he teaches rebirth, and you know it. It's that he ignorantly misrepresents and rants against those who do not, encouraging others like you to do the same.
"Scientific Buddhism" is just as superstitious as any other 'brand' of Buddhism, as it's only another stance keen to demonstrate its superiority. The Dharma is experiential at its core, thus nihilists of various hues will never be any nearer to it than eternalists.
It's not called the middle way for nothing.
Namaste
Kris
Kris
The Buddha's transcendent teachings are scientific. It is big of you to admit that superstition is a stance keen to demonstrate its superiority, but that characterization simply does not apply to science or the scientific method, and it's simply naive parochialism to claim that it does. Your suggestion that science or the scientific method is somehow "nihilist" simply illustrates a lack of understanding of what science really is. And nihilism, as well.
The Buddha hammered home the point over and over again that his own, transcendent Dhamma was and is to be seen and known for oneself. This is what science is about, as well: seeing the world as it is, rather than making up as one goes along.
It is not for no reason that science has displaced superstition in the Western world. It was only natural and inevitable that people turn away from made-up stories and toward the truth that can be demonstrated and seen for oneself. The Buddha saw that, too, but he also knew that the world he lived in was not ready for that, that it was too entrenched in superstitions for everyone to give them up and to accept his teachings. But he did teach them to those with little dust in their eyes. There were far, far fewer such people in the Buddha's world during his lifetime than there are today.
I misrepresent no one, Jason. But I do see how long your "attack the ideas, not the person" pontification lasted.
Actually, I was referring to the ranting, stuka. You said that Ajahn Brahmavamso "ignorantly misrepresents and rants against those who do not [teach rebirth], encouraging others like you to do the same."
For one thing, I don't "rant" against those who don't teach rebirth in the literal sense, and I've never told anyone that they must believe in postmortem rebirth to be a Buddhist (e.g., see my response here). Of course, I'm not shy about presenting the traditional interpretation of rebirth either, but I absolutely do not attack anyone for presenting a non-literalist interpretation (e.g., see my responses here and here).
I'm certainly opinionated — and I'm sure our good friend Simon can attest to that — but the fact is, I've never attacked anyone for having or presenting a non-literalist interpretation of rebirth, the five realms of existence in which one can be reborn, etc.
Plus, what I said was said in a lighthearted fashion (hence the ":D") and I'm sorry if it came across as some kind of personal attack.
Comments
Ego isn't the problem so much. The problem is that we live in ego's world. Ego is unhappy when the meditation doesn't go well and happy when it does. Ego hopes for the day when it will become enlightened and fears that it won't. So practice gets sucked into ego's world along with everything else.
It's a lot like a fearful person lives in a fearful world. The difference is that a fearful person knows others who aren't afraid the way they are, so at an intellectual level they know the falseness of their fears. But few have met a person who doesn't play ego's games. That's one reason having a teacher is so important and so powerful.
There are different methods to work with this and I believe a lot of the differences between Buddhist traditions represent different skillful means. One technique is simply boredom, to continue practicing when you want to do something, anything else. And that's another reason having a teacher and a community of fellow practitioners is important, so you can bore each other silly.
Very well explained, thankyou.
<<But few have met a person who doesn't play ego's games.>>
Yes - I know a few and they all blew me away by being who they were. My teacher included - he doesn't entertain me that way unfortunately - or fortunately depending on which way you look at it.
Thanks again, Jinzang - very helpful and enjoyed the way you relayed it.
I never thought you meant otherwise.
'If you're willing to take the risk, devotion can speed your progress'.
Haven't I answered this already- in several posts?
Palzang: 'The reason most Westerners in particular react so strongly to the idea of devotion is that devotion represents a strong attack on ego, so people respond with fear'.
Didn't I answer this in my very first post?
C'mon guys:cool:
Yeah, I know. Just thought I'd mention it anyway.
Peace:)
Since you don't like the way I put it, let me try a different approach. Do you have any experience with 12 step programs? If you do, then you would know that they have a strong emphasis on having a sponsor, someone who has already walked the path to sobriety and can help guide the sponsoree on his path because, let's face it, few if any drunks (or whatever the addiction of choice is) can straighten themselves out. Most come to a 12 step program after having promised (with all good intentions) to quit a million times - and failed each time to keep the promise. So they need to have a sponsor to keep them on the straight and narrow. Only that way do they have a hope of attaining sobriety, though even then not all make it.
It's like that with the Dharma. We've been bouncing around the wheel of death and rebirth for countless lifetimes since time out of mind and have yet to come up with the solution yet. Reading a book on Dharma or getting together with other ignorant sentient beings isn't going to do it either. Oh, there might be a little progress, or there might (more likely) just be an increase in confusion and delusion. Just like a bunch of drunks getting together to talk about how to get sober. Likely to happen? I don't think so.
That's why a teacher is so strongly emphasized in Vajrayana. It is especially important on this path because many of the practices that are undertaken can be extremely dangerous if not done under the guidance of a qualified teacher. It's the same basic principle as the 12 Steps. You need someone who has walked the path and accomplished it to guide you along so that you avoid the missteps and pitfalls that we otherwise wouldn't pick up on. Make sense so far?
So now we get to devotion. Without devotion, we wouldn't really give a rat's patoot what our teacher told us. We'd just keep sailing along in our little delusions happy as a pig in you-know-what. If one instead develops devotion in the teacher (not the person, but what the teacher is teaching), then one will pay attention to instructions and follow them. Doing that will produce the desired result. Failure to do so will most likely result in catastrophe and just further suffering on the wheel.
It's important to point out that it isn't devotion to a person or a personality. It's devotion to the teachings that come from the mind of enlightenment through the teacher. That doesn't mean that just because the teacher likes chocolate ice cream that I have to also. It is devotion that is our mainstay and our joy. A better word for it might be recognition, recognition that this is the truth and that following the truth will lead to liberation.
So you ask, how is one to know if it's truth or just another deception? The only way you can tell, to be frank, is by trusting your own gut. That's the ultimate test. Sure, there are guideposts like lineage and recognition and so forth, but ultimately there is no one to make the decision except you yourself. There is no magic pill you can take that'll make the decision for you (no wonder Westerners are so afraid of it!). It's just you. If it's too scary, don't do it!
Palzang
Palzang
I'm with Prometheus on this. I know when I feel gratitude and respect for someone because it comes from somewhere real. I don't make much of an outward show, but it's there.
Doing it 'to order' is not for me.
Being told that tears should well up everytime...
...okay, slice me an onion and I just might be able to join in. :crazy:
No, it's more like the ego is very slippery and you can easily fool yourself into some sort of pseudo-blissed out state so that you think you're enlightened when you're really just more seriously deluded than when you started. You end up basically creating your own religion with no basis in sanity.
Palzang
Nor do I, for the umpteen hundreth time. Is anybody paying attention here?
Well, you didn't actually address the fear that ego projects to protect itself in your first post, but anyway...
Ok, but I'll just say that I've given you some real reasons that people like myself don't like venerationism, and to ignore that and decide for yourself what people's real reasons are for not liking it (i.e. fear for ego) is just creating a strawman and doesn't further debate.
That's why a teacher is so strongly emphasized in Vajrayana. It is especially important on this path because many of the practices that are undertaken can be extremely dangerous if not done under the guidance of a qualified teacher. It's the same basic principle as the 12 Steps. You need someone who has walked the path and accomplished it to guide you along so that you avoid the missteps and pitfalls that we otherwise wouldn't pick up on. Make sense so far?
Yes yes...
So now we get to devotion. Without devotion, we wouldn't really give a rat's patoot what our teacher told us.
Ah. Maybe it's just me, but I don't need to venerate someone to care about what they have to say. I don't know if it's occurred to you since you wrote your post, but the sponsors in the 12 step programs - that you so brilliantly cited in support of the usefulness of a guide - don't receive devotion or veneration from the people they're helping. And yet, the 12 step programs work... maybe because it's not devotion that's needed to make us care about what someone tells us, it's simply a willingness to take advice from someone with greater experience in dealing with a problem than you.
It's important to point out that it isn't devotion to a person or a personality. It's devotion to the teachings that come from the mind of enlightenment through the teacher.
This almost sounds like what I was suggesting before... devotion to an Ideal above your ego rather than to a person. This would be fine- venerate an Ideal, take guidance from a teacher; but it's when the Ideal and the teacher get mixed up together, such that you're venerating the Ideal through the person of the teacher, that in practice still leads to all the concerns that I've aired in my previous posts on this thread.
Peace:)
The old "moon and Finger" thing......;)
When I was staying in the UK I noted that material comforts and a relatively pampered existence can mask the nature of suffering until the day you find you have inoperable cancer or lose a beloved child or find yourself unemployed and homeless or trapped in addiction.
Each of us will endure one terrible day when we sit down and ask ourselves "What is the meaning of this life now? How can I bear to go on?" Suffering is the key problem or illusion we need to deal with. We may not realise it but we are already out in that terrifying ocean searching for a raft to help us reach the shore. There is no time to lose. Impermanence is the only reality we will know in this life. All around us others are waking to find themselves dying, facing Alzheimers, lost in depression, uncertain about the meaning of life, in a tunnel with no light at the end. What do we have to offer those we love and care for as they suffer and struggle?
The ongoing adaptation and inculturation of Buddhist teachings will continue to be problematic -- but the questions around suffering and death will always bring us back to certain quests and lasting truths.
Mary
I believe I don't qualify as a Buddhist. I don't know what I am, let alone need a particular label. My path to liberation or Moksha is through deep love, respect and some veneration of the teachers that have come before me and the wisdom they have set down. My bowing down to them is to show gratitude and love for the work they have done. I don't regard this as "blind" devotion to whom they were/are and what they represent, its an understanding that they have walked a particular path, they have suffered the highs and lows, and through their love they are passing on these teachings to me (though of course not only me!!!). For this I am eternally grateful. Its a personal "truth". Thus I dedicate my life and all that i have been, am and will be to them, in the belief that by following the example they set down I will be liberated, from all forms of delusion and come to know my true self.
This is my cents worth.
Palzang
Buddhism does indeed need to be reformed, but not only to modernize it. In many ways, it needs to be reformed in order to make it match what the Buddha actually taught. Here in Korea, and in Thailand where I was temporarily ordained, monks routinely deal in the fortunetelling and good-luck amulet markets, both of which were forbidden in the Vinaya.
Certainly, we in the West should dispense with the superstitious and supernatural aspects of practice, but we should be compassionate with those in Asia who are still caught up in the pre-Scientific Englightenment mindset. It's only natural that the ideas and practices of modern Asian people would be conditioned by the many centuries of their cultural history. The way we Western people think is no different in this respect.
So, while we apply scientific knowledge and principles to our interpretation of the Buddha's teachings, we would be wise to keep in mind the value of compassion towards those who see things differently from us, including those in the West who disagree with us. Keep in mind that the person who sees things differently is no more/less of a self than you are, and if you understand paticca samuppada, you'll see that there are legitimate reasons (conditions) that account for the wide diversity of understandings and descriptions of the way things really are. There's more than a little wisdom in the Buddha's advice to respond to such things with, "Why would you expect it to be different?"
I've been thinking a lot about how others see reality and how many different ways there are to see it. I used to wish everyone thought like me.
Now that I'm growing up I'm realizing diverse understandings are inevitable. I'm just not sure why.
So my next move is to have a look at paticca samuppada, as you pointed out, and maybe I'll find out.
Thanks!
Glad you got something out of it!
I'm enjoying reading your posts here.
_/\_
:thumbsup: I'm looking forward to having more time to catch up on all that's been written here so far. I'm still a noob here, but I'll try to catch up.
I agree, FBM. The Vinaya has become seriously degraded in many places in Asia. In Mongolia, for example, when the peaceful revolution took place and the country moved away from Communism in the early 1990s, people were free to practice Buddhism openly again. Many took advantage of this, calling themselves monks and dressing up like them but having no understanding of what being a monk meant. There were, as you say, fortune tellers and other charlatans surrounding the few old temples that remained from 65 years of brutal communist repression. Seeing "monks" drunk in the streets was a common occurrence, and many visited prostitutes openly. It was a bad scene. By the time I got there in 2005, things had been cleaned up a lot, but there were still major problems. Many temples would have menus of prayers they would do for certain problems, like marriages, deaths, births, family problems, etc, with prices accordingly. Then the practices would be performed by these "monks" (who weren't really monks) who knew how to read Tibetan, but had no idea what the words meant. So they were selling Dharma and performing useless, meaningless prayers for people, preying on their gullibility. It's no wonder that Mormons and other pseudo-Xian cults are making headway there.
It's also important to keep that awareness alive here in the West where Buddhist monasticism is just taking hold. We need to be vigiliant to maintain the purity of the lineage while adapting to life in the West. We also have to deal with the difficulty of holding one's robes in this Western desire realm where we are constantly being bombarded by the temptations of desire and gross materialism. It's not an easy task, and one that requires constant attention on the part of whoever is ordained. There are already a number of bogus groups around who have pretend monks and nuns who have no clue what the Vinaya even is, much less what it says, such as the so-called "Church of Shambhala" or the New Kadampas whose monks do not live according to the Vinaya and who follow a false teacher. Whether or not Buddhist monasticism will even survive here in the West or whether it will be swallowed up in watered down spirituality and false teachings remains an open question.
Palzang
He sure did! I was ordained in his lineage. Most of the things written by acclaimed 'masters', in Thailand and elsewhere, seem to just parrot what was written by others before them. When I read No Ajahn Chah, a book of his aphorisms, I really get the feeling that he actually understood for himself the way things are.
Palzang,
The second-largest order in Korea not only allows monks to marry, but also to have jobs, etc. They have a college that I looked into once. Some of the courses taught are things like geomancy, numerology, fortunetelling, etc. :-/
In fairness to them, though, they state up front that they don't follow the Vinaya. Their goal, at least ostensibly, is to integrate Buddhist principles and practices into the everyday home life of Buddhists and society at large. That part is hard to argue with, as long as they mean 'real' Buddhist principles and practices, not the hocus-pocus part.
Boo, dearheart,
This is a crucial understanding and one that opens our hearts and minds to true benevolence towards those who think, believe and act differently from ourselves. The Q'ran, for example, teaches that, when a person is killed, a whole world dies: i.e. each one of us experiences the universe in a unique way and, as a result, each one of us is uniquely valuable.
At age 23, I was asking one of my professors about his beliefs as a Quaker (oh! how cheeky: he was in his 60s, and a respected educationalist). He said: "Forget all the doctrine and dogma. The truth is that you are unique; you are uniquely valuable; you have never been seen before nor wioll be seen again. And I meet God in you." I was bowled over. Still am - however much my notion of 'God' may have changed.
Try it some time: as you move among other people, think it to yourself as you look at each one: "In you I meet the compassionate Ground of being" - it's mind-blowing.
I don't know how 'Buddhist' it may be but all I read of the Buddha's encounters with individuals suggests to me that he recognised, in each one, the unique manifestation of BuddhaNature.
However, in the West, superstition in Buddhism is definitely growing.
In the early days, Buddhism to the West focused upon practical teachings, such as those by Lama Yese, Chogram Trunpga, Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Sumedho, Ajahn Buddhadasa, Joseph & Jack, etc.
However, now the evangelical rebirth movement is growing very strong.
An example is in Australia, we have Ajahn Brahm, Sujato and their chronies controlling Buddhist dissemination. Although they declare themselves to be part of the Ajahn Chah lineage, they are pushing rebirth very strong and teaching The Four Noble Truths & Dependent Origination as doctrines of rebirth.
Often, we talk about "Buddhism" without realising its doctrines are perpetuated and defined by very few individuals. For example, those one or two monks who translate from the Pali.
In brief, superstition in Western Buddhism is growing rather than declining.
The original teachers theorised the West was ready for scientific Buddhism but the new teachers have realised their alms bowls prefer superstition.
Many Western Buddhists are so engrossed in rebirth that they do not even understand the basics of practice (regarding mindfulness & wisdom at sense contact).
Largely true, however I once saw a Buddhist theme park in Thailand that focused on 'scaring kids straight' with very gruesome, horrible and terrifying paintings and bloody statues of souls being tortured in Buddhist 'hells'. However, like you say, that was nothing evangelistic. Everyone involved was already Buddhist. Still...:eek:
:facepalm:
Yes, wholeheartedly agreed. That's why I bought up the Pali Canon for myself (in English, though) and compare different translations of key suttas. Blind faith in one's teacher, however sincere and well-meaning, is no way to go.
I was afraid of that. I've been in Asia so long I'm not really up-to-date on how the West is dealing with Buddhism. However, from what I read on certain Buddhist forums, it's not something I want to be involved in. Seems that a few big players are hedging on anatta, and allowing uninformed-yet-enthusiastic devouts (read: donors) to cling to the belief that there is something resembling what is conventionally understood as a person's individual identity that gets reborn into a future life.
They also seem to hide behind obsure Pali vocabulary and use it to browbeat neophytes and keep them guessing. :downhand:
So is your mission here to bad mouth every monk and lay-person who doesn't have the same understanding of Buddhism as you do?
Buddha taught his Dhamma is for the cessation of suffering. Whilst the Buddha had to conform to Indian society by teaching things to support pre-existing beliefs, of his own teachings he said I teach only two things, namely, suffering & freedom from suffering.
When one witnesses playing and tampering with the medicine or, more so, witnesses more intellectly inclined Westerners turning medicine into theories to support their craving for existence and ego, the gratitude turns to painful vedana.
When we know dukkha and its end, our view will change.
Until then, our folly makes confusion for ourself & others.
:cool:
There's a big difference between addressing an uncomfortable truth and "badmouthing".
Learn it. :cool:
Very well said, Dhamma D., very well said.
The only thing that I could add would be to point out that superstitions die hard.
After all, Christianity is still around, even though it's interacted with science far longer than Buddhism has.
And now I think I'll just sit for a while ...
I love Ajahn Chah and the teachers of the Thai Forest Tradition too, Brigid. Ven Ajahn Chah's directness first attracted me to his teachings a year or two ago
Although I've been an offline practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism for a long time I don't consider investigating the Thai Forest Tradition to be a problem. I'm very lucky in that the Monastery of Ven Ajahn Sumedho is accessible to me here in the UK - and I have already been there to investigate and to meditate in the shrine room of the temple. I hope to return for an interview with Ven Sumedho within the next 2 months. The secretary told me it can be arranged, so I'm really looking forward to that !:)
_/\_
And what, pray tell, is the "uncomfortable truth" of Ajahn Brahmavamso? That he teaches rebirth? In my experience, most monastics do. I've yet to met one who didn't.
Or that he's "controlling Buddhist dissemination" like some sort of insidious Buddhist mafioso? Please. He doesn't force anybody to listen to his talks or read his books. One is just as free to pick up something by Ajahn Buddhadasa.
One doesn't need to go around saying disparaging things about others who happen to teach rebirth just because one disagrees with it. Attack the ideas, not the person.
I'm very lucky too because there's a Thai Forest monastery called Tisarana about an hour and a half from where I live. The abbot is Ajahn Viradhammo whose teaching style I really like. I visited the monastery last summer and it was great. As I was walking up the path to the house I saw a monk in his ocher robes feeding an apple to a large deer.
"Scientific Buddhism" is just as superstitious as any other 'brand' of Buddhism, as it's only another stance keen to demonstrate its superiority. The Dharma is experiential at its core, thus nihilists of various hues will never be any nearer to it than eternalists.
It's not called the middle way for nothing.
Namaste
Kris
I think you raise an interesting point, DD, and one which I have considered in respect of each spiritual discipline I have examined: the questions of historico-cultural conditioning and context.
Is it possible to remove the Buddha or the Christ or the Prophet from their context? It is certainly what the Jefferson recension does with the Gospels. It is the attitude which says: "I don't like what, today, appears to me to be superstitious, so I will dismiss it." The way in which you phrase this, "the Buddha had to conform to Indian society by teaching things to support pre-existing beliefs", implies that the historical Buddha could have turned the Wheel of Dharma in any other way, in some non-contextualised way.
I would suggest that this is to misunderstand the reality of socio-economic context as formative, particularly as it impacts on language, which is the main way in which the message has come down to us.
Let us be honest: we may not like early Buddhist 'superstition', it may not fit with our own, post-Enlightenment, post-Nietzschean world view but don't let us pretend that, in some mysterious way, the teaching Buddha (or Jesus or Mohammed) were outside their own historical context. Nor, I suggest, should we imagine that our own peculiar take on the Dharma insofar as it differs from that of our brothers and sisters elsewhere and elsewhen is truer - it may be more useful for some for a while, nothing more.
The Eschaton has arrived! Jason and I agree!! Hallel!
The uncomfortable truth is those who are genuinely searching for the way end to suffering are turned away.
The uncomfortable truth is the medicine of the Buddha becomes hidden or lost or one must join the "inner sanctum" of a secret monastic order to find the medicine.
As I already advised you Jason, the Buddha taught for the single goal of the cessation of suffering.
Now pray tell, please list the benefits of ascribing to your rebirth view?
Now pray tell, why do you fight the supramundane dhamma?
As a learned Theravadin, I would expect you understand each day the homage chanting about the Dhamma is "sanditiko, akaliko, ehipasiko, opaniyko, paccatam veditibo vinnuhi", namely, "apparent here & now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, leading onewards [to Nibbana], to be experienced by the wise for themselves".
There is no blind faith or theory ascribed here friend.
Are you not concerned with tampering with the medicine another may need (when you cannot percieve a need for yourself)?
There are two kinds is sickness. Not knowing one is sick and knowing one is sick.
In the Buddha's time, he did not teach the noble truths and dependent origination friviously.
To children, he taught suttas like MN 135 but did not teach the noble truths and dependent origination.
Scientific Buddhism means that which is verifiable. This is what the Buddha taught, when he said:
As for your words about 'nihilist' and 'eternalist', these are irrelevent to the discussion given your understanding of this words appears inaccurate.
The Buddha already removed himself from his cultural context. There is no need for us to do that.
The Buddha divided his teaching into two kinds: core & non-core; unique and not-unique; transcendant & mundane.
When the Buddha referred to the "special message of the Buddhas", this was the Four Noble Truths.
When the Buddha referred to "words of the Tatagatha", this was emptiness (sunyata).
When the Buddha referred to his teachings which were "blameless & irrefutable", this was the elements, sense spheres and the noble truths.
As Western society is not Indian society, the unique, transcendent & core teachings are free from any form of cultural context or need.
However, the teachings of Jesus are not like this. Jesus did not divide his teachings into two sorts.
The teachings of Jesus are inseparable from the notion of "God" where as the Buddha himself divorced his core teachings from the notion of rebirth and unverified doctrine.
No Simon. This is not implied.
The Buddha did turn the Wheel of Dharma completely divorced from cultural context, when he preached the 1st, 2nd & 3rd sermons.
The cultural context entered into the Buddha's teachings after his fame; after the ordinary man, kings, various sectarians, etc, began to request teachings from him.
If you study the suttas, you will find in most settings, the Buddha answered the questions asked of him. People would approach him and ask: "We wish to be reborn in a heavenly world".
The mundane non-core teachings of the Buddha are generally responses to pre-existing beliefs.
I have already rejected you suggetion Simon because it does not apply.
No Simon. That is not the case, as I have explained. I would suggest you try to learn more about Buddhism rather than seek to incorporate it into a quagmire (spelling ?) of philosphical and religious views.
There is nothing to "pretend" about Simon, as I have already established.
The Buddha's core teachings address the universal human condition of suffering. They are completely mind based and free from any cultural context.
Best wishes
:buck:
It's not at all that he teaches rebirth, and you know it. It's that he ignorantly misrepresents and rants against those who do not, encouraging others like you to do the same.
Says the pot to the kettle.
I misrepresent no one, Jason. But I do see how long your "attack the ideas, not the person" pontification lasted.
Kris
The Buddha's transcendent teachings are scientific. It is big of you to admit that superstition is a stance keen to demonstrate its superiority, but that characterization simply does not apply to science or the scientific method, and it's simply naive parochialism to claim that it does. Your suggestion that science or the scientific method is somehow "nihilist" simply illustrates a lack of understanding of what science really is. And nihilism, as well.
The Buddha hammered home the point over and over again that his own, transcendent Dhamma was and is to be seen and known for oneself. This is what science is about, as well: seeing the world as it is, rather than making up as one goes along.
It is not for no reason that science has displaced superstition in the Western world. It was only natural and inevitable that people turn away from made-up stories and toward the truth that can be demonstrated and seen for oneself. The Buddha saw that, too, but he also knew that the world he lived in was not ready for that, that it was too entrenched in superstitions for everyone to give them up and to accept his teachings. But he did teach them to those with little dust in their eyes. There were far, far fewer such people in the Buddha's world during his lifetime than there are today.
Actually, I was referring to the ranting, stuka. You said that Ajahn Brahmavamso "ignorantly misrepresents and rants against those who do not [teach rebirth], encouraging others like you to do the same."
For one thing, I don't "rant" against those who don't teach rebirth in the literal sense, and I've never told anyone that they must believe in postmortem rebirth to be a Buddhist (e.g., see my response here). Of course, I'm not shy about presenting the traditional interpretation of rebirth either, but I absolutely do not attack anyone for presenting a non-literalist interpretation (e.g., see my responses here and here).
I'm certainly opinionated — and I'm sure our good friend Simon can attest to that — but the fact is, I've never attacked anyone for having or presenting a non-literalist interpretation of rebirth, the five realms of existence in which one can be reborn, etc.
Plus, what I said was said in a lighthearted fashion (hence the ":D") and I'm sorry if it came across as some kind of personal attack.
Jason