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.
Neo-Buddhism
ThailandTom
Veteran
So I have been reading the book 'Handbook For Mankind' and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu seems like my kind of guy. He seems comes across as a no-nonsense kind of teacher and I personally can really relate to what he talks about.
This is about a section where he talks about 'Neo-Buddhism' and what it actually means to be a Buddhist in his opinion. I am curious to hear of your opinion of some of these extracts.
'Buddhism means the teaching of the Enlightened One. A Buddha is an enlightened individual, one who knows the truth about all things, one who knows just "what is what," and so is capable of behaving appropriately with respect to all things. Buddhism is a religion based on intelligence, science, and knowledge, whose purpose is the destruction of suffering and the source of suffering. All paying of homage to sacred objects by means of performing rites, rituals, making offerings, or praying is not Buddhism. The Buddha rejected the celestial beings, then considered by certain groups to be the creators of things, and the deities supposed to dwell, one in each star in the sky. Thus we find that the Buddha made such statements as these:
"Knowledge, skill, and ability are conducive to success and benefit and are auspicious omens, good in their own right, regardless of the movements of the heavenly bodies. With benefits gained from these qualities, one will completely outstrip those foolish people who just sit making their astrological calculations." If the water in the rivers such as the Ganges could really wash away sins and suffering, then the turtles, crabs, fish and shellfish living in those sacred rivers ought by now to be freed from their sins and suffering too" And: If a man could eliminate suffering by making offerings, paying homage, and praying, there would be no one subject to suffering left in the world, because anyone at all can pay homage and pray. But since people are still subject to suffering while in the very act of making obeisances, paying homage, and performing rites, this is clearly not the way to gain liberation"
Rites and ceremonies of this kind have become so numerous that they now completely obscure the real Buddhism and its original purpose. Take for example the procedure of becoming ordained a monk. There has come into existence the ceremony of making gifts to the newly ordained bhikku. Guests are invited to bring food and to watch proceedings, and as a result, there is much drunkenness and noise. ceremonies are performed both at the temple and in the home. The new bhikku leaves the Order only a few days after having been ordained, and may become an even stronger temple hater than he was before. It must be borne in the mind that there was none of this at the time of the Buddha. It is a later development.
All this presenting of gifts to newly ordained bhikkhus, this performing of ceremonies, including all sorts of celebration, these we are foolish enough to call Buddhism! Furthermore we choose to make much of them, thinking nothing of spending all our own money, or other people's on account of them. This 'Neo-Buddhism' is so widespread as to be almost universal. The Dhamma, the genuine teaching that once was paramount, has become so overlaid by ceremony that the whole objective of Buddhism has been obscured, falsified and changed. Ordination, for instance, has become a face saving gambit for young men whom people have been pointing at for never having been ordained, or a prerequisite to finding a wife(as having been a monk is considered a sign of maturity), or is done with some other kind of ulterior motive. In some places an ordination is regarded as an opportunity for collecting money, for which job there are always people on hand to help. It is some way of getting rich. Even this they call Buddhism and anyone who goes and criticizes this is considered to be ignorant of Buddhism or opposed to it.
He does talk about what Buddhism essentially is in its purest form, but I am not in the mood for typing out more and more. He goes on to talk about how this type of Buddhism is a cancer, a tumour which has developed in Biddhism and thrived in many forms. Offshoots and sects that are even involved in sensuality. To conclude
Those of us interested in furthering Buddhism, whether as a foothold for all people, or for our own private well being, must know how to get hold of the true essence of Buddhism and not just grab at some worthless outgrowth|
I understand that with time things change as that is inevitable, things get added and things get removed, but the teachings of the Buddha lead directly to the fruit of the path and that is something that should be kept pure IMO.
This is about a section where he talks about 'Neo-Buddhism' and what it actually means to be a Buddhist in his opinion. I am curious to hear of your opinion of some of these extracts.
'Buddhism means the teaching of the Enlightened One. A Buddha is an enlightened individual, one who knows the truth about all things, one who knows just "what is what," and so is capable of behaving appropriately with respect to all things. Buddhism is a religion based on intelligence, science, and knowledge, whose purpose is the destruction of suffering and the source of suffering. All paying of homage to sacred objects by means of performing rites, rituals, making offerings, or praying is not Buddhism. The Buddha rejected the celestial beings, then considered by certain groups to be the creators of things, and the deities supposed to dwell, one in each star in the sky. Thus we find that the Buddha made such statements as these:
"Knowledge, skill, and ability are conducive to success and benefit and are auspicious omens, good in their own right, regardless of the movements of the heavenly bodies. With benefits gained from these qualities, one will completely outstrip those foolish people who just sit making their astrological calculations." If the water in the rivers such as the Ganges could really wash away sins and suffering, then the turtles, crabs, fish and shellfish living in those sacred rivers ought by now to be freed from their sins and suffering too" And: If a man could eliminate suffering by making offerings, paying homage, and praying, there would be no one subject to suffering left in the world, because anyone at all can pay homage and pray. But since people are still subject to suffering while in the very act of making obeisances, paying homage, and performing rites, this is clearly not the way to gain liberation"
Rites and ceremonies of this kind have become so numerous that they now completely obscure the real Buddhism and its original purpose. Take for example the procedure of becoming ordained a monk. There has come into existence the ceremony of making gifts to the newly ordained bhikku. Guests are invited to bring food and to watch proceedings, and as a result, there is much drunkenness and noise. ceremonies are performed both at the temple and in the home. The new bhikku leaves the Order only a few days after having been ordained, and may become an even stronger temple hater than he was before. It must be borne in the mind that there was none of this at the time of the Buddha. It is a later development.
All this presenting of gifts to newly ordained bhikkhus, this performing of ceremonies, including all sorts of celebration, these we are foolish enough to call Buddhism! Furthermore we choose to make much of them, thinking nothing of spending all our own money, or other people's on account of them. This 'Neo-Buddhism' is so widespread as to be almost universal. The Dhamma, the genuine teaching that once was paramount, has become so overlaid by ceremony that the whole objective of Buddhism has been obscured, falsified and changed. Ordination, for instance, has become a face saving gambit for young men whom people have been pointing at for never having been ordained, or a prerequisite to finding a wife(as having been a monk is considered a sign of maturity), or is done with some other kind of ulterior motive. In some places an ordination is regarded as an opportunity for collecting money, for which job there are always people on hand to help. It is some way of getting rich. Even this they call Buddhism and anyone who goes and criticizes this is considered to be ignorant of Buddhism or opposed to it.
He does talk about what Buddhism essentially is in its purest form, but I am not in the mood for typing out more and more. He goes on to talk about how this type of Buddhism is a cancer, a tumour which has developed in Biddhism and thrived in many forms. Offshoots and sects that are even involved in sensuality. To conclude
Those of us interested in furthering Buddhism, whether as a foothold for all people, or for our own private well being, must know how to get hold of the true essence of Buddhism and not just grab at some worthless outgrowth|
I understand that with time things change as that is inevitable, things get added and things get removed, but the teachings of the Buddha lead directly to the fruit of the path and that is something that should be kept pure IMO.
2
Comments
Thanks for posting
Basically deep down I think I always have been (since being a 'buddhist') hardcore. By that I mean really traditional and it should be pure and down to the point. What is important is the peeling away of ignorance and finding the true nature of things, I think there are too many fads, hindrances and cobber-codge (yea I just made up a word) out there in Buddhism today. In that book he also said that since the day the Buddha died things have been added, taken away or changed and that is inevitable, but he thinks it is necessary to come back to the Buddhas teachings purely and simply.
But an hadith of the prophet Mohammed tells us 'An hour's contemplation is worth a year's worship'.
Good advice I'd say.
Another thing to consider is that everything was written down after the fact (some stuff was earlier than others, but still), so again I'm not so sure it's that simple to say this is exactly the way it was 2500 years ago, either, and things naturally evolve over time anyway.
I don't have an issue with ritual or things feeling religiousy -- in fact, I find it personally helpful up to a point. If the day to day rigamarole gets too complicated, then it only gets in the way. But a somewhat devotional feel can also help the ego take a step back. I don't have a problem with people not needing this stuff, but I do have a problem with the idea that a 'pure' stripped down approach is the right way to do things. One of Buddhism's strong points in my mind is the fact that there are many different variations -- it gives more people a chance to connect.
Thanks for posting this. It's an interesting discussion.
I once lamented to a monk in Bangkok how difficult it was to find a Thai Buddhist temple in American in most places. And he reminded me that the temple we were in, and all the paraphernalia, and even the statue of Buddha had nothing to do with what Buddhism really is.
But on the other hand, does it do any harm? And I think as you pointed out, usually no, but potentially it could.
I think in particular of my once favorite Buddhist temple, which happens to be right in the heart of Bangkok's modern shopping district -- literally right in between two of Southeast Asia's largest and most modern shopping malls. Sort of in the back is a wiharn that is a 24/7 place to meditate. It's a very quiet place, and I used to love to just go there and think, but I also watched the Thais who came in there. More than many temples, they mostly seemed to use that particular place as a place of focus. In fact, at least in that wiharn, there were no places for candles or incense, etc. So, the ritualistic aspect of Thai Buddhism was pretty much absent. It was usually a place where a dozen or two people were meditating. Occasionally a monk was present.
But, ritualism attracts some people more to their religion. So what's wrong with that, too.
I guess it kinda reminds me of, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". If the ritualism works for some of us. Fine. Better to be somewhat ritualistic than not Buddhist at all.
This all makes sense, Dhamma Dhatu's favorite teacher.
Asian Theravadins expect you to follow their traditions and not question
them. You can point out that certain practices or ideas are not in the Tipitaka or are even contrary to
it but it will make no difference. Right or wrong, inane or practical, that’s how it has always been
done and that’s what you must do. In 1996 I traveled in Europe for the first time thus giving me the
opportunity to see how Theravada was understood and practiced there. Theravada in Asia might be
hidebound and fossilized I thought but at least Westerners will have been able to separate the fruit
from the peel, the gift from the wrapping, the Buddha from ‘the thick uneven crust’ surrounding
him. To my astonishment and despair I found that this was not so. Most groups, centers and
monasteries I visited adhered to such practices with even more tenacity than in Asia. I finally had to
admit that this is Theravada and reluctantly and with some sadness decided that I could not be a part
of it any longer. I decided
that I did not have to align myself with any school. Now I follow the Buddha’s teachings to the best
of my understanding and to the best of my ability.
He says some very similar things to Budhadasa. I find these screeds to be interesting and thought-provoking. I thought the part I bolded might be helpful to some of our members who wonder if or when they have to decide on a "school".
Thanks for sharing.
http://www.buddhistische-gesellschaft-berlin.de/downloads/brokenbuddhanew.pdf
For those of us who want to practice Buddhism in a stripped-down, basic way, does that make this like Protestant Buddhism?
And then there is the dispute over who is 'authentic' Buddhist. :rolleyes:
There is no "right" or "wrong" way of practice.
But keep in mind that in SE Asia, Buddhism is often "mixed" with animism.
This is another way of expressing the Buddhist metaphor of using the raft to cross to the other shore. One should not cling to the raft, sure--but one has to get to the other side of the shore first! Why so quick to dump the raft?
I used to be very resistant to much of Buddhist ritual, and I am still learning to accept some of them--others I have finally grown to accept and incorporate into my own practice. But I used to be a 'zazen only, please' Buddhist, and now it seems to me that this is like having only a flathead screwdriver in a toolshed--by itself it isn't so helpful. At any rate, I don't think its a good idea to so quickly dispense with the notion of ritual just because some people get hung up on it. There is nothing inherently wrong with ritual--rather it is what we make of it that matters.
Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote, 'A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push.' I think Buddhist rituals can easily appear that way too.
One particular thing that really stands out in my mind is in natural childbirth. Ritual and repetition become crucial in order to move through that experience. These things can become quite uncomfortable to watch/hear from a bystander position-- I believe because it reminds us that there is something else in us-- something that is so primal and uncivilized that we can't really understand it. In my mind, I am quite certain that this is why, in the west, we have moved to a method of "normal" birth that requires numbing, medicating, speeding up, and ultimately, surgery. Someone else has to control this process-- someone else has to do the birthing (the Dr.)-- in order to prevent the mother from reaching this primal state.
But in the end, the best thing is to do what is right for yourself. Only you can reconcile your own feelings, knowledge, and experiences. Ultimately it isn't what you chose to do, but how you process and settle your decisions/experiences.
I've always hated ritual and ceremony but the one time I went to a group and found myself reluctantly going through a few small rituals I found them extremely effective. Something about discipline, state of mind, humility, shared experience and so forth. But as has been said, they are just a tool and a method, useful or not depending on the context. I expect we all have our little rituals that help our practice but are not necessary to it.
It's an interesting thing that many of these questions about Buddhist practice can also be asked about practicing a musical instrument, and often are by pupils. Is this or that kind of practice necessary? Well no, there are no rules, but if many great players made use of them then they are probably useful.
To be honest, I'd say that I could probably do with a year's worth of disciplined ceremony and ritual, even though I know that theoretically it would be unnecessary.
I think when we are "out of the mainstream" of a religion that it's often okay, as long as we understand where we are
Thank you for the interesting discussion. I would on the whole agree with your post. We have 2600 years of human culture and ideas that overlay what we would call buddhism. Some folks need rituals for inspiration or hope and I think that is okay. As was posted earlier by @florian: I would tend to agree with this. Knowing that one's ritual is just that a ritual and that any kind of liberation is going to found in oneself.
idk, maybe I'm somehow oversimplifying things. But I think if you examined the traditions from a scholarly and anthropological perspective, you could see the cultural context of each, and peel that away, and then compare and contrast, and see what teachings are common to all of them, even though some emphasize meditation, others emphasize complex philosophizing, and others may emphasize charitable acts or asceticism. There's still a universal foundation of teachings at the core of each tradition, isn't there? The facts of the Buddha's life: discovering the MIddle Way, his observation that suffering arises from attachment, etc. guarantees that certain basic elements will be present in all traditions.
However, I suppose if all traditions have now adopted some form of ritual, it would be easy to conclude that ritual is one of the core elements of Buddhism, as Tom's essay points out.
hmm... :scratch:
Does your sangha like ritual?
On the outbreath you notice thoughts as thinking and relax into space. Both are formless, the first breath because there is no method. Also the next breath because here you are having awareness of spaciousness which brings the quality of clarity to bear.
http://buddhism.about.com/od/becomingabuddhist/a/ritual.htm
I like the "Empty Your Cup" story.
Be the Middle way. Be flexible.
It is difficult to cling lightly to such things, no?
As for the OP I find Buddhadassa's views interesting, though I think he is prone to straw-man arguments, ie presenting stereotypical and misleading descriptions in order to criticise them. A good example is his diatribe against the Satipatthana method in the book "Mindfulness with Breathing".
<<All paying of homage to sacred objects by means of performing rites, rituals, making offerings, or praying is not Buddhism.>>
I don’t know what language Buddhadasa wrote in, but this makes no sense to me in English. So there’s this pure “Prism” out there, instituted by Shakyamuni, which prohibits all performing of rites, participating in rituals, the making of offerings and prayer? Sounds like Islam to me; apparently Shakyamuni said he was the final prophet and no other Teacher would arise after him?
<<Rites and ceremonies... have become so numerous that they now completely obscure the real Buddhism and its original purpose. >>
Well, that thought was prevalent in the Christian West in Reformation times among the Protestants. However, 450 years later the Protestant churches are becoming more “Catholic” whilst the Roman Church has become much, much more lax about its rituals and such. However, in the West, the difference between the churches catholic and protestant is (speaking of bhikkhus) that the catholics —Roman and Anglican— still have their monasteries and their convents. The Noble Way of the Monk is usually the least cumbersome way fully to be able to follow the teachings of a Buddha or a Jesus. But part and parcel of the monastic world is an outer secular world which helps support the monastic. Now, perhaps if a lot of extra “stuff” has evolved or been added, it’s due in no small part to some reciprocity and interchange between those more knowledgable and those only able to appropriate some measure of the teaching in some different way.
<<Those of us interested in furthering Buddhism, whether as a foothold for all people, or for our own private well being, must know how to get hold of the true essence of Buddhism and not just grab at some worthless outgrowth.>>
Much of this so-called “worthless outgrowth,” I’d argue helped keep the monks fed and the message alive and flourishing. It’s not like the ancient texts themselves have been embellished with worldly nuggets to hide the Teaching; nay the Teaching has been preserved.
<<The true essence of Buddhism>>? That's sheer sloganism or some phantom.
The heart of the Buddha's teaching is not affected by "custom and ritual." Nay, those are the things that help Buddhist culture keep the Teaching alive. The Monk is still free to be a monk and the layman can seek his own liberation in his own way, and the uncurious will doubtless have countless lifetimes to "get it right."