Modern Buddhism - what is it?

Whoknows

Hi I have a stupid but serious question here, what is modern buddhism? It seems a bit of a silly distinction as we are (predominantly) Buddhists here and it is modern times. Who has coined the term, and who affixes themselves to this label, and is there a benefit to be had? What do modern buddhists assume that non-modern buddhists are?

federica

TbH?
I'm not sure myself.
It's like when Shiatsu, TCM, aromatherapy and herbalism are called "alternative therapies" when in fact, they've been around for millennia, and strictly speaking, it's what we would call conventional medicine (which has only been around realistically and recognisably for around 200 years)that is the alternative....

That bugs me and puzzles me rather.

Whoknows

It's getting late here, I'm getting tired and nonsense is starting to come from my fingers. I'm not so good at tla's but I can now add TbH and TCM so it was a productive question afterall. Thanks federica!

Cheers, WK

federica

TbH = To Be Honest...common forum parlance, sorry if I confused you. I've been around too long!

TCM = Traditional Chinese Medicine. This is a common acronym in the sense that most text books referring to oriental philosophy/practice use it because the full-winded version really is a mouthful...

Cloud

I think Modern Buddhism is mostly used to denote Buddhism as it has been moving into the West (i.e. USA) and attempting to strip cultural baggage; also referring to Buddhism as a "religious philosophy".

DhammaDhatu

I get the impression 'Modern Buddhism' is that approached in a 'scientific way'. What this means, to me, is it purely concerns itself with that which can be verified or known.

Of his core teachings, the Buddha said they are directly visible (sandiññhika), timeless (akàlika), verifiable (ehipassika), leading onwards (opaneyyika), to be individually experienced by the wise (paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi).

buddhajunkie

I think Western Theravada fits the jist of "Modern" Buddhism... the type of Buddhism that psychology PhD's practice and give seminars on.

Jason

I'd say it also includes moving away from some purely traditional elements while at the same time introducing modern ones, such as utilizing textual analysis when it comes to studying the various canons, comparing the parts of Buddhism like the teachings on dependent co-arising, the aggregates and not-self to advances in modern psychology, etc.

zenff

Here’s my shot at it.

A new religion will generally be modern, because it comments on what was there before it (the religious or non-religious beliefs, known to the society in which it develops).

The latest significant development – I guess – is science as a method of understanding our world. It puts scientists in a position to comment on, and dismiss maybe, the religious beliefs known to them. Science is modern.

A new religion - if we ever see one - will be modern, because it will probably include or dismiss the scientific method, and all major religions known to it.

For an old religion, like Buddhism, to become modern it must catch up with major developments that occurred after it got established, and comment on them.

So I’m with DD.
Modern Buddhism is Buddhism that finds a convincing way of including or dismissing the scientific method and its findings.

All of this is looking at Buddhism as a set of beliefs, as a religion, though.

Buddhism can be looked at differently; as a practice.
Buddhism is not what Buddhists believe, it is what they do (or try to do).

Meditation, mindfulness, kindness and compassion are not really attributed to a specific time and are not limited to any specific religion.

deepak

Buddhism is aimed at the Truth.Science also has its truth and every religion has its own idea of truth.Truth can be defined as what was, is and will be.If it is changeable, then it is not the truth
If Buddhism is true, it must be applicable even to the future.We cannot say that the Buddha's teaching was for his contemporary era some three thousand years ago and since then many things have changed and that therefore we must have modern Buddhism.Modern Buddhism of today will become traditional Buddhism
of tomorrow.The day after tomorrow,somebody may modernize Buddhism again .Buddhism is not like science where the latest scientific knowledge always overthrows the former scientific knowledge.

Every day is new.Every day is also the same.This is the truth.In ancient times everything was void.Now everything is void.In the future everything will be void too.It does not mean that in Buddhas time life was so simple, so he could say everything is sunyata, but that now in our modern times everything has become so complex that it is impossible to meditate on the sunyata

This kind of thinking is within the limitation of time. Beyond time the Truth is always happening,is always new, is always advanced.The truth has attained to the very end or rather to the very non-end.

taiyaki

Truth is always the same. People and cultures change with time. So Buddhism has to adapt to that change.

Some people don't believe in change and stick to old traditions. That serves a purpose. Reminds me of people who collect vintage stuff. They claim the old stuff is purer and better. And yes it works and is going to work. But it is for a certain demographic, not for everyone.

Some people need Buddhism in the context of "American culture", etc.

Everyones different. Buddhism points to the same universal truths. It is just a different style for different people.

deepak

"Some people need Buddhism in the context of "American culture", etc."

Could you kindly elaborate on this statement please?

taiyaki

I really can't. It's too hard of a subject to tackle. Anything I say is just an assumption based on what I've experienced and that doesn't hold true for everything and everyone. I view Buddhism as a product. It is marketed towards a certain demographic, you know the whole suffering one lol. That product may not reach everyone, so you create similar products with a different package and name. But it's important to remember that it is the same product in the end.

Now many people would disagree with what I am saying and that's fine. Sorry that I avoided the question.

taiyaki

I view Modern Buddhism as an abstract idealization. Maybe one day female monks will get equal status as male monks. Maybe we won't be so sexually repressive to monks and lay persons. Maybe we won't focus completely on dogma and doctrine but emphasize practice and humility. Maybe one day we won't place "Buddhas" on a pedestal and realize the living Buddha in each human being. Maybe we'll stop projecting our notions of what we want "Enlightenment" to be. Maybe we'll stop creating a personality structure around "spirituality". Maybe we'll stop looking for extraordinary experiences and be amazed by the ordinary experiences?

Maybe these things are already happening? Lol

Dakini

Maybe we won't be so sexually repressive to monks

If the monks can't hack it, they can give back their robes. I think there should be a secular Buddhist study/practice track that parallels the monastic education, or even improves on it, for those who don't want to do the celibacy thing. That would do away with the pretense of celibacy, and only those who feel a strong sense of spiritual calling would go into a monastery.

zidangus

This is a good point. Just my observations, I may be talking rubbish, but reading some of the threads and posts on this forum, it seems that a lot of (not all) the "modern Buddhists" especially in the west, like to pick and choose parts of the Dharma to accept or reject and seem to in general not be very open to any type of faith in anything that cannot be explained scientifically, especially on concepts such as rebirth. I think I myself have a traditional view of Buddhism and its teachings, especially the teachings directed at the lay Buddhist, of which I am. But my views and practice I hope reflect these teachings of Buddha. I suppose a good question to ask is, as a Buddhist (forget modern or traditional labels) should I or should I not accept the core teachings of the Buddha in full. I mean if you do not do this are you in effect practicing only part of the Dharma that was taught by the Buddha ?
And before anyone cites it, I know the Buddha teaches free inquiry in the Kalama Sutta,
but I agree with Bhikkhu Bodhi argument that you have to really look at the audience that the Buddha was directing the teaching to.

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/kalama1_l.htm


Metta to all sentient beings

taiyaki

I believe a lot of Zen sects allow for sexual activity.

Dakini

I believe a lot of Zen sects allow for sexual activity.

That's what I read. That in Japan it's acknowledged that it's not realistic to require celibacy. But if that's the case, why the monastic tradition? Why not secularize the monasteries? Because it's Buddhist tradition to have monks? Because that's how the Buddha set it up? We're attached to tradition now, instead of facing reality?

taiyaki

From what I was told, Zen in Japanese is pretty much dead. It's all run by families like a business. You have to pay to go into temples and such. It seems all the Zen teachers moved to America.

Reality is what you make it. So if you want tradition to be your reality, go for it. It's an interesting issue that really has no black/white answer.

deepak

"But it's important to remember that it is the same product in the end."

Yes, this has to be maintained.In Buddhist countries, people use their hands to turn the pray wheel round and round.We can use electricity to do it.This is good and these kinds of things can be changed but not the Truth.The Truth is the same in America or China or even Tibet

Dakini

From what I was told, Zen in Japanese is pretty much dead.

I've read there is, or was, a branch of Buddhism in Japan that's tantric. I don't know if that's still around, do you know, Tai?

Dakini

Reality is what you make it. So if you want tradition to be your reality, go for it. It's an interesting issue that really has no black/white answer.

I have no objection to tradition per se, but if one of the main ingredients gets ignored routinely (celibacy), then what's the point? Setting up a secular track would restore honesty to the field. It's maintaining this strange pretense of celibacy that doesn't make sense to me. But those few who can actually pull it off should have the option of joining a monastery. That's how I see it.

taiyaki

I have no idea what kind of Buddhism is left in Japan. Though I have heard a lot about nichiren buddhism. Lol.

I'm sure each sangha deals with these issues. And I am sure they are doing something/nothing about it.
I agree with you though.

MindGate

Zen is dead in Japan? What? Blasphemy.

hermitwin

Modern Buddhism is not ancient.
Ancient Buddhism is based on Pali canon.

deepak

Modern Buddhism is not ancient.
Ancient Buddhism is based on Pali canon.

Buddhism is Buddhism as Buddha foretold the coming of Nagarjuna in the Lankavatara Sutra saying that after eight hundred years have passed, such a sage will arise. It is also written in the Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra that Nagarjuna was a Buddha in the past.Aavaghosa was once a Buddha as well.Then again, in the Mahayana it is never said that the Theravada is not Buddha-word.Thus, Buddhism is just Buddhism

Whoknows

And before anyone cites it, I know the Buddha teaches free inquiry in the Kalama Sutta, but I agree with Bhikkhu Bodhi argument that you have to really look at the audience that the Buddha was directing the teaching to.

:thumbup: