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.
parsing Buddhism
genkaku
Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
Perhaps because of my advanced age, I read phrases like "modern Buddhism" or "western Buddhism" with some curiosity. Is what is "modern" or "western" really much different from whatever is not "modern" or "western."
Pardon my English, but it strikes me as "same sh*t, different day."
What's your take?
Pardon my English, but it strikes me as "same sh*t, different day."
What's your take?
0
Comments
There is a heavy de-emphasis on monasticism. There is actually more of an emphasis on "mind-only" type discourse, where cosmology (e.g. heaven and hell realms) are just in the mind and are not actually metaphysical places unlike more classical Buddhism.
we live in a different world where people have electricity, with television, internet, communications are available at every hours of the day.
we can spend every second of the day entertained if we want to.
attention span must have been much better to begin with back then.
This is why methods like Avatar, Power of now, sedona method are so popular.
They are better adapted to modern societies.
Even people here in this forum, with a decent interest and motivation on buddhism itself, often i read things like "I meditate for 10 minutes a day because i found it too difficult when i tried 15 minutes", or "I meditate about 5 minutes a day because my life is so busy" or "i tried meditating for 15 minutes everydays for one week, and i don't see any progress!" etc...
I believe that so many will do this for a few weeks/months, and then get discourage by the lack of progress and believe that it doesn't work for them or it's too difficult for them.
I'd be curious to know how many of the forum members (people with genuine interest in buddhism, genuine desire) actually meditate seriously and consistently, and how many do attend retreats... who got time for a 10 days retreat??
Buddhism techniques are so drastically opposed to what people usually do in todays society that it is very difficult for many to implement in their lives and give it a good run.
My monestary is very strict in maintaining the Kaygu lineage and teachings, however over the years the teachings have been presented in a way that is more benifical to those in the west.
I am not sure if that helps or not.
The Buddha used the analogy of dusts to describe the obscuration of truth. For describing the “dusts” caused by culture I would like to use the analogy of rope. Different cultures bind beings with different “knots” of delusion. There’s a phobia among a certain population of India men of nocturnal emissions because they believe losing semen equates to a loss in life force. Have you seen Jesus Camp? Unbinding those cultural delusions will require radically different approaches.
Also, to flourish in a culture Buddhism needs to put the right foot forward. A person from a monotheistic background or one that identifies as an agnostic/atheist may completely shutdown if presented with the idea that the goal of Buddhism is to stop the cycle of rebirths. I don’t think many Westerners come to Buddhism with the goal of enlightenment. In my personal case I came for the meditation techniques as an atheist and as I obtained positive results my mind became more receptive to the philosophy. Before having encountered Buddhism a limited, unrefined, partial understanding of anatta had manifested in myself with respect to the capacity of language. I remember trying to talk to people, asking them “Where do your words come from? How do you understand what I’m saying?” This understanding that an uncontrollable, unobservable outside was being identified as a self was completely in tuned with the teaching of anatta and served as fertile ground. I think a lot of Buddhist teachings are trying to kill just enough of the weed that is ego so that truth may have a fertile ground in which to grow. I also believe that is why Japanese Zen is so cryptic, especially Soto. A culture that manifests the act of seppuku has to be systemically perpetuating a potent delusion refined over many generations. If you were to grow 20+ homo sapiens from a test tube, drop them in the jungle and inconspicuously observe them for generations, how many tens of generations would have to pass before a pandemic of cultural neurosis like seppuku were to arise?
I really hope Western Buddhism becomes a consciousness oriented approach to transmitting the dharma and takes indecisive stance on metaphysical posits, such as reincarnation, karma and the hells.
Out of curiousity, and nothing flaming, why does Buddhism have to change just because some people may be taken aback by certain practises or dogma? I guess I'm taking the approach of just because someone doesn't like something, doesn't mean it's not true. If physical rebirth IS true, then as much as those against physical rebirth hate it, it will still happen to them right?
I'm genuinely asking the question. Why should Buddhism (or any path for that matter) change to please the mainstream?
In metta,
Raven
Because we want all to free themselves from suffering.
That's my point. It shouldn't have to, and I feel that Buddhist Modernism (although it does have its merits) often finds itself on the slippery slope of commercializing and diluting "real" Buddhism.
When I say "real" Buddhism, I mean holistic sets of practices that can be found in schools of thought: Nichiren, Zen, Theravada, etc. None of this "I believe in karma and I meditate but I don't think I will follow any of the precepts... they're not commandments after all." or "Karma is a bitch. That's so Zen!" stuff.
I'm sure many of you are aware of this site, but The Worst Horse is a great site that compiles a lot of "dharma burgers," or ways that the Dharma has been commercialized.
While I'm all for people making their own path to nirvana, I think it's another thing entirely to let people pick and choose parts of a religion/set of values in order to fit their lifestyle.
It's the "Middle Way" because it is not entirely sunshine and roses, but not exceedingly difficult. I find that Buddhist Modernism tends to fall into the former by allowing "practitioners" to do whatever they feel like.
Depending on what you're pointing to with the concept/word "Buddhism" it is either ever changing, completely static or both. Unfortunately my mind doesn't have the energy to expound on what I meant by that. My apologies, I sincerely hope there was understanding.
Going back to the statement "If physical rebirth IS true". Your statement implicitly implies that it is only a possibility, the other two main stream possibilities being an eternal afterlife and complete dissolution. From the analytical Western perspective consciousness is an emergent property of biological processes, therefore when those processes cease consciousness ceases. There have been case studies of individuals recalling events of the lives of others, but reincarnation is only one possible mechanism of action.
Even if there is some "force" that saves the patterns that compose personality and perpetuates it's existence in a manifestation dependent on it's merit this process may not be bounded by space time. In other words depending on your karma you may reincarnate as anyone, anywhere, in any timeline (assuming the multiverse theory is valid).
So, in much the same way that Buddha didn't validate or negate the absolute existence of reality, I wouldn't validate or negate reincarnation. The path is not dependent on reincarnation and almost all of these questions become moot when you realize from where they are arising.
If any of this seems arrogant please forgive me. I am sincerely trying to dispel what I perceive as wrong view.
Traditional Buddhisms seem repleate with the trappings of all large world religions:
They have heirachy, authority and orthodoxies; something I don't see in the tales of the Buddha's enlightened life and teaching.
They have a insistence on scripture; there were no scriptures in the buddha's time.
They have a goal unattainable in this lifetime; there are many accounts of this goal being met by many in the Buddha's time.
There are other points too, but I think the gist is clear.
One thing that happens in all systems with centralisation, be they governments, corporations or religions, is that power (however it is manifested) becomes increasingly concentrated. I do believe this has happened with buddhism, and hope that over time the teaching and understanding of dharma will be brought more down to earth and amongst the lay.
namaste
Agreed.
Western Buddhism seems essentially to be "fundamentalist Buddhism." After all, Westerners who gravitate to Buddhism do so for the same reasons that the Buddha himself did-- to escape suffering. So it's no surprise that they focus on the same things that the Buddha did, including an emphasis on meditation.
Here's an interesting podcast episode (Gil Fronsdal) relevant to this discussion. He basically asserts that the West played a huge role in revitalizing Theravada Buddhism, and meditation, beginning in the 1800s.
http://diydharma.org/historical-roots-western-vipassana-gil-fronsdal
I am not so sure that the Buddha did emphasise this. For a number of reasons:
Meditation isn't specifically mentioned in the First Sermon (SFTWOD), Fire sermon, last sermon (MPS), Dharmapada....
There are a number of cases of people becoming enlightened after a very short time, certainly with no time to really become the kind of expert we are told is needed today.
Meditation now has become synonymous with Vissapana meditation, which doesn't seem to make sense when there are other kinds of contemplative meditation that would seem to be key.
I have a suspicion that the meditation bias in buddhism is part of the general unobtainability aspect I spoke of before.
Dont get me wrong, I think knowing and controlling one's mind is essential to dharma practice, but it is not all of it or most of it. i would say it is about an eighth of it;)
namaste
You have raised some interesting points. I have came across these points before but, sadly or otherwise, people seem to avoid going deeper into these discussions; I don't know why: maybe they are too attached to formal meditation and fail to see it as just one aspect of mental cultivation.
I would be very surprised if I was the first to come up with them:) They seem pretty obvious, in terms of possibilities; especially when you look at the evolution of other religions.
namaste
That may be your experience, certainly not mine. It has been the most profound change I could imagine.
Unto each their own light,
namaste
Come on, Shenpen. Tell us how you really feel.:D
If we look at the premise introduced a few posts ago:
I can't see a way to square this with the vajrayana dharma. Perhaps there is some way with other schools, I must beg ignorance of them, but the teachings on the twelve nidanas are pretty emphatic that the causal factors begin with ignorance and work from there. Phenomenal existence is viewed as an emergent property of consciousness. This is absolutely crucial to understanding the tathagathagarbha and prajnaparamita sutras that underlie the practice of vajrayana.
Now who am I to say whether some of these new approaches don't bear fruit in achieving enlightenment for their practitioners? I am going to stick with those that have a track record of success, however. I have seen the results of practice in my guru and his guru, as well as many others of the same lineages of philosophy and practice. Given that they have achieved the result and can teach others to realize in the same way, why would I try to alter the teachings until I too have realized the goal?
Herbert Guenther spoke very eloquently about the threat of linear reductionism when attempting to merge Buddhism with modern physics. I tend to agree with him that we can take a multi-model approach with different (even conflicting) premises to use for different goals. Truth does not lie in our symbol systems and language. Our concepts are all mere approximations. They are maps to a territory, not the territory itself. The desire to come up with one true coherent system is understandable but I believe ultimately futile. Moreover it is unnecessary.
For example, look at the field of medicine. We can make use of modalities like Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tai Chi, Qigong, Ayurveda, etc. along with western medicine without having to make sure that they all share the same premises. It is only zealots of one approach that will insist that everything agrees with their chosen method.
Consciousness is one of the five aggregates and thus is not independent, is void of inherent existence, and is impermanent. Consciousness will dissipate at death as will the other four aggregates.
Mind is not an aggregate. So where does it have to go?
Many of us use words like "consciousness", "thought", "mind", "awareness" interchangeably and I think this conflation of word meaning can cause a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding.
If science says that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the brain, then so be it; vijnana is not chitta.
Because the nature of the human mind does not change the Dharma remains unchanged. Yea It doesn't matter what you call it.
What is important is that it is available to all who choose to see.
but many/most of the sermons were to monks, who (I assume) were expected to meditate.
So contextually, it seems that these sermons relate to meditation, even though it is not explicitly mentioned. Sometimes what is taken for granted is more telling.
Among Westerners this makes sense, since it seems that Vipassana most directly addresses what Westerners want-- a way to gain mindfulness, stress reduction, happiness and mental health and acuity, in a way that can be explained easily, scientifically and without adopting much ritual, superstition or metaphysics.
It's not that Vipassana is "superior" in some way, but rather that it offers something that resonates with Westerners, especially those who are suspicious of organized religion.
not three-eighths?
Yes, there are other aspects of mental cultivation. Few meditators claim otherwise.
However, from the viewpoint of Westerners, Buddhism without meditation has very little to offer them beyond what mainstream Christianity (or Judaism, Islam, etc.), or self-help/counseling offers.
Westerners have already been told to not lie, steal or covet they neighbors wife, and to turn the other cheek and to love. They can pray for loved ones and strangers and can do works of charity in the name of the lord. And they have been told by self-help gurus ad nauseum to live in the moment and that they have a choice to suffer or not.
What meditation offers to all this is a way to see deeply and clearly, by and for oneself, why all these things are true and valuable. It is also a way to exercise the philosophy without being overwhelmed by real-world situations and reinforcing reactive behavior. Buddhist meditation is not the only way to do this, but it is a very efficient and effective way to do so.
I'll understand eventually, don't worry.
Actually it doesn't if you read it in context of my post. Which you haven't. As I said "If physical rebirth IS true, then as much as those against physical rebirth hate it, it will still happen to them right?". Which means just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not true. A lot of western buddhists I've met and engaged with don't like the concept of physical rebirth because it goes against their disbelief or dislike of anything seemingly supernatural. Hence me using the physical rebirth statement - which is something I believe in.
I'm not arguing nor disagreeing with that at all.
Forgiven, perceptions are often misleading too, as I have found out myself on occasion.
- Raven
Correct. I did not understand you were asserting reincarnation is true, the word "if" threw me. Going back to your original post. Yes, if reincarnation is a reality just because people don't like it doesn't mean it won't happen to them.
My posts were aimed at bringing about dispassion with regards to the events after death either through accepting them as either unknowable or seeing the fallibility/mutability in "truth".
I think we would agree that a dislike of rebirth, or even the possibility of rebirth, in a Buddhist is... not good. I'd go as far as to say that a strong intellectual resistance to the idea is probably a symptom of clinging and wrong view.
I like to think of perception, especially abstract perception, as a tensed muscle. Often its squeezed so tight that when you come in contact with it you think it's a rock. But if you learn to massage it and try to unclench a little wonders can happen.
A thousand years from now, some Buddhists will tell their young converts that their new twenty-second century style of Buddhism is no good, and they should stick to the traditional Western style Dharma as practiced by their honored ancestors of Europe and America.
There is nothing left to do but laugh.
I'm not sure about labels, but for me "modern buddhism" is about focusing on the four noble truths, rather than the cultural accouterments.
That is your assumption.
In that very first sermon, when he first sets in motion the wheel of dharma, and in that very last teaching when he gives Ananda the gift of the mirror of dharma, I see not a mention of an expectation to meditate.
That is how it seems to you. It doesn't seem that way to me.To me it seems that the Buddha saw Dharma during his meditation under the Bhodi tree, once seen, it was seen and taught.
I only see one, and that is not exclusively about insight meditation, to me.
Namaste
Wilkommen back !
I would say that focus is fundamentally what the Buddha taught;)