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.
I enjoy reading arguments put forth by various members. But I would like to remind all to give due respect to the traditional form of Buddhism.
When did westerners start learning and practising Buddhism?
Prior to that Buddhism has been preserved and transmitted in conservative Asian societies for over 2000 years. Without that conservative tradition, westerners would not even have the chance to learn Buddhism.
Members who dismiss or critique their way of doing things would do well reevaluate themselves.
0
Comments
Hermitwin, because times change, that also means religion, beliefs, and attitudes need to change too. Just saying.
But maybe he has a point. We need to find out first, what it is he has in mind.
It's not healthy to confuse questioning with disrespect.
I think in order for a religion/philosophy to remain healthy it must be constantly evolving and questioning itself. It must be an ongoing discourse.
Times may change and everything is impermanent, but buddhism should be followed as the buddha himself taught it. It is written that he knew what he was doing would have an impact on the people of the future, and that he had started the dhamma stone 'rolling'. Everything that he taught can be adapted to today's life, the schools, traditions and whatever else that has come since has been fabricated by people, not the buddha. His word, the dhamma is what is important to me.
However, I never go around trying to disrespect a tradition, I just see it for what it is
Some older Buddhist traditions don't follow the Buddha's true teachings, instead they add their own cultural teachings into it. These are still traditional teachings, but not the Buddha's true teachings. True Buddhism is timeless.
The Buddhas words were also dependently arisen from factors such as tradition. So the notion that the Buddha was pure whereas laterday were impure is bogus. Not to remove the distinction that Buddha was awake, a extraordinary state of mind.
Time is illusory. Once you do not attach to that construct everyone's words are timeless. But I know what you are saying. Mindfulness is relevant in modern culture. But note how Mindfulness is both taught by buddha and laterday teachers.
But I agree they will continue to work.
I don't think stoning to death was correct even way back when.
In the 20th century, most noteably in Thailand, Buddhism modernised & broke "tradition". For example, if we read the website of the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand, it presents teachings that break "tradition".
Similarly, in the 20th century, Tibetans such as Lama Yeshe broke "tradition" and began teaching Westerners.
The reality is, in many conservative Asian societies, Buddhism became undifferentiable from the underlying Brahminism/Hinduism. It is arguable these societies did not preserve the purity of the Buddha-Dhamma.
Kind regards
DD
Exactly, I think its very important to constantly question what is true Dhamma, and what is cultural baggage. Just because something has been passed down for generations doesn't mean it has to be respected per se.
Its important in my opinion to constantly try and scrutinize every bit of information as rationally as possible; never let respect get in the way of that.
You stole my thunder.
Tradition is dogmatic and to cling to it is not what Buddhism is about.
I'll wear my kilt at weddings, I eat haggis (veggie) on burns day etc because these types of tradition in the correct context are fun. Holding ones beliefs based on tradition is entirely different.
"light blue touchpaper and stand well back".
I would remind hermitwin to never leave a firework unattended......
Will you offer the same opportunity to those that come after you?
Or will you only offer them what you have selected?
Anybody earnestly following Buddhism does not 'pick and choose' what they like/don't like.
Anybody earnestly following Buddhism will spend time evaluating what comes their way, what they learn, meditate, think upon examine and scrutinise.
A Buddhist does not 'pick and choose'. A Buddhist adheres to those principles which resonate with him/her and practises them accordingly. A Buddhist is free to do this, because Buddhism does not require one adheres to every single principle presented, even within a tradition.... Who are you talking to?
Who is teaching?
Who is offering....what?
And even if something is 'selected' it is up to the pupil to not accept anything blindly.
Isn't it?
The question is posed to you, what would you preserve and what would you discard? For example, many people are uncomfortable with what Buddha said about ordination of women and additional rules for nuns. Would you discard that?
This is just one example and by no means the most important one.
Well said Sir. Well said.