Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

What's "Modern Buddhism"?

DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
edited November 2013 in Buddhism Today
It's a term I stumble across regularly, and it's the name of this sub-forum, but I'm really not sure what it means.
"Modern" as opposed to what - "old-fashioned"? :p

Any thoughts?
«1

Comments

  • I always assumed it meant modern as how we apply the basics to our lives today, as opposed to times before technology, modern medicine, and the awareness that 'religion' is mythology...
    zenffSkaði
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    edited November 2013
    It can have a bunch of different meanings really. It could be used just as a term of saying how Buddhists living today practice and the state of Buddhism Today(sort of like using the term "modern society"). It could also be a bit more exclusionary and pretentious in meaning Buddhism without all the "extra silly stuff".
  • Well, I prefer pragmatic instead of pretentious or exclusionary... :)
  • It could just mean modern times including east meeting west.
    MaryAnne
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    MaryAnne said:

    Well, I prefer pragmatic instead of pretentious or exclusionary... :)

    now now, no one brought in pragmatic :). I actually know two pragmatic monks from the Buddha Center and have listened to them talk many a time.

  • howhow Veteran Veteran
    I think modern Buddhism is just how the Buddha would practice in today's world as opposed to the living conditions happening 2600 years ago.
    lobsterVastmindInvincible_summer
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    To me, 'Modern Buddhism' means Buddhism in the context of today. This can include everything from modern interpretations of certain teachings and insights gained from modern textual analysis and archaeological discoveries to the challenges people today face in the practice and modern Buddhist culture and news (e.g., the revival of the bhikkhuni sangha, conflicts between Buddhists and Muslims in SE Asia, the various forms of Buddhism that have emerged and how they each practice, etc.).
    lobsterVastmind
  • MaryAnne said:

    I always assumed it meant modern as how we apply the basics to our lives today, as opposed to times before technology, modern medicine, and the awareness that 'religion' is mythology...

    I agree, I think some Buddhist people say it to distinguish themselves as adhering to a philosophy rather than to a religion. Though I agree with Jayantha that that potentially opens the door to a lot of pretention and exclusion.

    I personally would say that I'm definitely more of a modern Buddhist than a traditional one, because it's true. I'm not using medicinal herbs to treat health problems rather than using modern medicine, I'm not wearing an orange robe and meditating on a mountaintop, and I can't speak any language besides English. But I still regard my personal Buddhist practices to be religious practices. If someone asked me what Buddhism was to me, I would admit that it is my new religion. I'm not rubbing it in anybody's face but I would say it, even though it would be very embarrassing to me as a former atheist.

    But I'm just trying to say that I don't think all self-described "modern" Buddhists regard religion as mythology. Many do, but not all.
    Jeffrey
  • genkakugenkaku Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
    Maybe it means a Buddhism of convenience.
    lobsterChazDennis1
  • Modern – in my mind – is the readiness to question and abandon traditional (dogmatic) Buddhist views because in our time we can see that they are wrong.

    We can understand that millennia ago people would think that the earth is flat and that there are four elements and that all kind of magic is nothing special. But we can’t seriously think that way today.

    We can’t stop at what (tradition tells us) the Buddha said. We have to look with our own eyes and incorporate the essence of Buddhism in our present-day understanding of our world.

    MaryAnneDennis1
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    zenff said:

    Modern – in my mind – is the readiness to question and abandon traditional (dogmatic) Buddhist views because in our time we can see that they are wrong.

    We can understand that millennia ago people would think that the earth is flat and that there are four elements and that all kind of magic is nothing special. But we can’t seriously think that way today.

    We can’t stop at what (tradition tells us) the Buddha said. We have to look with our own eyes and incorporate the essence of Buddhism in our present-day understanding of our world.

    What you appear to be saying is we are more enlightened than our buddhist predecessors who carved the path out of stone - and in the modern tradition we just duplicate it endlessly in silicon and plastic.
    Dennis1
  • There are four elements. It is not the scientific element. Wind moves, fire warms, water flows, earth gives substance.

    There are then also the mental elements: space and concsiousness.
    Dennis1
  • matthewmartinmatthewmartin Amateur Bodhisattva Suburbs of Mt Meru Veteran
    Well, there is a type of Buddhism called Modern Buddhism, and that for academics means something specific, as opposed to the generic dictionary definition. I'll talk about that sense of "modern"

    DT Suzuki, the popularizer of Zen in the US was thoroughly modern- knowing that he was addressing an audience influenced by the ideals of the Enlightenment, captitalism, marxism, he created a message that appealed to those sort of people. It was a good thing, imho, I've read that some people in Japan think that they should look to the US Zen experience to revitalize Zen in Japan.

    Anything that you see that is eco-Buddhism, feminism-Buddhism, Buddhism that cares about post-colonialism, a lot of engaged Buddhism-- all this is modernity. Obviously there is enough material in Buddhism to pull out of it an argument in favor of environmentalism, equality, justice for all and so on, but that wasn't the main ancient goal, and not really an goal of things that were between. For the last few 1000 years the escape from samsara was a big deal, using the Buddhist organization to generate support for the Emperor and helping take census, generating good luck etc. All good things, but things de-emphasized in the modern world.
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    How about we seek to define 'modern buddhism' in a catch phrase:

    'Modern Buddhism is how we are practicing now!'
  • BonsaiDougBonsaiDoug Simply, on the path. Veteran
    edited November 2013
    anataman said:

    How about we seek to define 'modern buddhism' in a catch phrase:

    'Modern Buddhism is how we are practicing now!'

    Perhaps the term "contemporary" might be more appropriate? Contemporary to present time allowing for any changes the practice of Buddhism might have incurred over 25/26 centuries.

    lobsterVastmind
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    Ok! Lets go for 'contemporary buddhism'. This is a much better term as it has 'time' or 'tempor' caught up in the title, rather than 'mode' meaning 'fashionable'…


    'Contemporary buddhism - its what we do! Yeah!
    BunksMaryAnneCinorjer
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    zenff said:

    We have to look with our own eyes and incorporate the essence of Buddhism in our present-day understanding of our world.

    But how do we know what the "essence" is, when we're looking at ancient teachings through a modern lens?

  • lobsterlobster Veteran
    edited November 2013

    But how do we know what the "essence" is, when we're looking at ancient teachings through a modern lens?

    We can be selective. As in, 'this accords with my preferences at present, so I'll do that.' We all start there.
    . . . eventually . . . we can distance our preferences from our real needs (not able to do that? tsk tsk . . . maybe that is what those teachers we keep hearing about are for?)

    The genuine teacher is always trying to make themselves redundant and pass the buck to the notorious, all knowing, Mr Cushion.

    . . . and now back to the ancient debate on the latest wheel turning . . .

    :wave:
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    edited November 2013
    anataman said:

    Ok! Lets go for 'contemporary buddhism'.

    I'm not sure that helps, because "contemporary" here really just means occurring in the present.
    So in that sense all the Buddhist schools we see are "contemporary", eg see the list suggested here:
    http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/19989/picking-a-school-of-buddhism-for-the-new-buddhist#latest
    So we can say all these schools are contemporary, but are they all "modern"?:
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    Jeffrey said:

    There are four elements. It is not the scientific element. Wind moves, fire warms, water flows, earth gives substance.
    There are then also the mental elements: space and concsiousness.

    Yes, these are found in many ancient systems and IMO are still useful today as a way of experiencing the world.
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    anataman said:


    What you appear to be saying is we are more enlightened than our buddhist predecessors who carved the path out of stone - and in the modern tradition we just duplicate it endlessly in silicon and plastic.

    Very true. Cheap plastic reproductions aren't that good really.
  • MaryAnne said:

    I always assumed it meant modern as how we apply the basics to our lives today, as opposed to times before technology, modern medicine, and the awareness that 'religion' is mythology...

    I agree, I think some Buddhist people say it to distinguish themselves as adhering to a philosophy rather than to a religion. Though I agree with Jayantha that that potentially opens the door to a lot of pretention and exclusion.

    I personally would say that I'm definitely more of a modern Buddhist than a traditional one, because it's true. I'm not using medicinal herbs to treat health problems rather than using modern medicine, I'm not wearing an orange robe and meditating on a mountaintop, and I can't speak any language besides English. But I still regard my personal Buddhist practices to be religious practices. If someone asked me what Buddhism was to me, I would admit that it is my new religion. I'm not rubbing it in anybody's face but I would say it, even though it would be very embarrassing to me as a former atheist.

    But I'm just trying to say that I don't think all self-described "modern" Buddhists regard religion as mythology. Many do, but not all.
    Perfectly agreeable statement, @ExpedientMeans.
    It's kind of like saying "All Catholics are Christian, but not all Christians are Catholic".

    "Modern" Buddhists are not all religious Buddhists; but in earlier times, all Buddhists were religious, and I imagine no one questioned that at all.

    In modern times, because we do know that the Earth is not flat, and we now have Science, and modern medicine, and know (for the most part) the inner workings of the mind and body... religion and superstition plays a much much smaller part in our day-to-day lives and practices.

    People are certainly free to keep their faith and religious traditions in whatever path they wish... and many do.
    But in a "modern world" even the most devout (usually) knows when to set aside the prayers, rituals and chants, and take that antibiotic, or have that surgery, or go see a psychologist or counselor.
    In modern times we know you can't "pray away the gay" or that mental illness is not a demon's or the devil's mind control. In modern times we know that "sin" doesn't cause diseases... and little by little I think Modern Buddhists are beginning to question if Karma (from past lives) does or not.

    I make no negative implications on anyone who wishes to 'keep the faith' so to speak.
    But I do sort of resent being told that because secular Buddhists (like me) don't, it means we're "exclusionary" or "pretentious".
    Science and technology isn't 'pretentious'... it simply is.


    matthewmartinHamsaka
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    MaryAnne and ExpedientMeans -- both great posts!
  • ^^ Thanks! and look- no crazy capitalization either! ;) I think I've finally broken that habit a while back. :D
  • @lobster, mr. cushion (this is for you and others to get back to meditation)
    A student writes:

    "I have been through huge changes in every aspect of my life. I have separated from my partner. I have also moved home and left my job.

    It has been a really difficult and painful time, and I am still finding it hard to adjust to all the change."

    Lama Shenpen:

    It sounds like you have had to be very courageous

    Student:

    "Also, I have stopped meditating, and only just started again. But I am finding it very hard to have a regular meditation practice, and even seem to have a bit of an aversion to it."

    Lama Shenpen:

    That often happens in situations like this.

    Don't push yourself too hard - do very, very short sessions of just five minutes or even less and do them just anywhere you happen to be - so that you start to associate meditation with something natural that you do when you are relaxed rather than this big thing you should be doing but can never quite get going with.

    If that works - try little and often until you start to feel a real sense of wanting to sit for longer and then again go easy - gradually lengthening the sessions as you find yourself wanting to.

    Student:

    "I'm sure it would really help me to reconnect with it, because I'm feeling a bit lost with everything else having changed, but it seems to be hard to get into it again.

    I don't know if you could suggest anything that might help, but I thought it might help me just to check in with you anyway."

    Lama Shenpen:

    Yes it's good to check in with me anyway.
  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    edited November 2013
    MaryAnne said:



    Perfectly agreeable statement, @ExpedientMeans.
    It's kind of like saying "All Catholics are Christian, but not all Christians are Catholic".

    "Modern" Buddhists are not all religious Buddhists; but in earlier times, all Buddhists were religious, and I imagine no one questioned that at all.

    But is that really how it was? How do we know that "all Buddhists were religious"? Do we know this, or is this something of an assumption?
    In modern times, because we do know that the Earth is not flat, and we now have Science,
    Of course, but "they" had science, too. Maybe not as sophisticated as what we have, but then science of the next century will probably make our sciences look like so much superstition, too.
    and modern medicine,
    Relative. Their medicine was "modern", too.
    and know (for the most part) the inner workings of the mind and body... religion and superstition plays a much much smaller part in our day-to-day lives and practices.
    Really? Again, how do we know this? And superstitious? Lets look at a typical sunday football game party. There's enough wishfull thinking and hope going on there, not to mention the belief that somehow, their participation via TV will somehow have an effect on the outcome, even though their a continent away. It' superstition at it's best. Football has become religion, but we don't think anything of it.
    But in a "modern world" even the most devout (usually) knows when to set aside the prayers, rituals and chants, and take that antibiotic, or have that surgery, or go see a psychologist or counselor.
    Of course. Even in times past, such things occurred. People went to a "doctor" who able to administer the best care they knew how to give, and lets not be naive about "modern" medicine. It ain't that great. In fact, considering I live in a civilized country that still has one of the highest child mortality rates in the world, I'd ask just how good is our "modern medicine"
    In modern times we know you can't "pray away the gay" or that mental illness is not a demon's or the devil's mind control. In modern times we know that "sin" doesn't cause diseases... and little by little I think Modern Buddhists are beginning to question if Karma (from past lives) does or not.

    I make no negative implications on anyone who wishes to 'keep the faith' so to speak.
    But you just did! The implications were, whether you like it or not, pretty negative.

    If I were to choose to pray away my cancer, that's none of your buniess and certainly not to offer comment on.
    But I do sort of resent being told that because secular Buddhists (like me) don't, it means we're "exclusionary" or "pretentious".
    Then be mindful of your thoughts and you won't have to be seen as pretentious and exclusionary. If the shoe fits .....

    Science and technology isn't 'pretentious'... it simply is.
    Scientists and technologists can be and often are pretentious. Science doesn't think. Science doesn't speak. Science doesn't act. Science is, karmically speaking, pretty harmless. Just like religion. Religion is just an idea, an abstraction, just like science. It's what people do with it that matters.

    Jeffrey
  • MaryAnneMaryAnne Veteran
    edited November 2013
    Science is not "just an idea". Science is, through theories, experimentation, study and statistical results, etc, provable - at least to the point of 'probable'.

    I'm sure you're right, there are some scientists or technologists who may be pretentious. But then there are clergy and believers who are also elitists and pretentious. That is an individual trait.

    Religion is myth, legend, superstition... and finally, faith.
    Huge difference in my book. And I have no problem with anyone wishing to have religion and faith in their lives. I've read scientific articles that claim humans - generally - are actually 'hard wired for religion'... and I tend to believe that as well.

    But Religion is not harmless. As you say, science doesn't act or speak. But religions do... religious books and clergy tell people what to think, how to act, what to say.

    Religion can be, has been, and probably will always be a bone of contention between peoples. Religion, taken to extremes, is damaging and oppressive to individuals, groups of people within societies, as well as to societies as a whole. Wars have been fought for religion and by religion.
    We all know that negative history of religions, one way or another, in every culture around the world at some point in time.

    [snipped]

    But you just did! The implications were, whether you like it or not, pretty negative.
    If I were to choose to pray away my cancer, that's none of your buniess and certainly not to offer comment on.

    But I do sort of resent being told that because secular Buddhists (like me) don't, it means we're "exclusionary" or "pretentious".

    Then be mindful of your thoughts and you won't have to be seen as pretentious and exclusionary. If the shoe fits ....

    Perhaps you should rethink your own assumptions and stop reading negativity where none was intended. My opinions are regarding religion, I'm trying to keep my comments on that and not individual folks who happen to believe in it.
    I did ask that you not call secular Buddhist pretentious or exclusionary... true. But where did I call names??

    [end snip]
    vinlyn
  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    MaryAnne said:

    Science is not "just an idea". Science is, through theories, experimentation, study and statistical results, etc, provable - at least to the point of 'probable'.

    Actually, you just proved my point - Science is just a collection of ideas.
    Religion is myth, legend, superstition... and finally, faith.
    Actually,religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

    Textbook definition for ya!
    I've read scientific articles that claim humans - generally - are actually 'hard wired for religion'... and I tend to believe that as well.
    And that's very true. That's why fottbal is religion, science is religion and Secular Buddhism is religion.
    But Religion is not harmless. As you say, science doesn't act or speak. But religions do... religious books and clergy tell people what to think, how to act, what to say.
    Again, you prove my point. Religion is just a collection of idea, which on their own are incapable of any action whatsoever. People can choose to take that and go to war. But "choose" is the operative term. Oppenhiemer didn't have to make The Bomb. The science didn't make him do it. He chose to do it. He wasn't powerless.

    Perhaps you should rethink your own assumptions and stop reading negativity where none was intended.
    I understand your intention, but depite that you did come off a bit negatively
    My opinions are regarding religion, I'm trying to keep my comments on that and not individual folks who happen to believe in it.
    But religion is an intensly personal thing. When you go down the road you're going, people will take it personally, regardless of your intention. If you don't already know that, it may be time to take that to heart.
    I did ask that you not call secular Buddhist pretentious or exclusionary... true. But where did I call names??
    You didn't, but then, you don't have to call people names to speak negatively of them. I could speak volumes on Secular Buddhists and not speak a single aspersion. I could still be painfully negative.


    Jeffrey
  • MaryAnneMaryAnne Veteran
    edited November 2013
    ^^ @Chaz, Yes but you DO realize that my latter comments in this thread are about religion - ALL religion, every single one. I wrote every word not focusing specifically on Buddhism and excluding all other religions.
    You personalized it and pulled out the negativity you wanted to apply to my words.

    Sorry you couldn't read my comments objectively. And yes, I absolutely do see your point how you *could* take my opinions and viewpoints personally- but I'm assuring you I didn't mean it that way. You still want to nitpick it and argue? Well I don't.

    But one last thought- My secular Buddhism is very important and personal to ME as well... just as important as your brand of religious Buddhism is to you (as you state).
    I only asked you not make assumptions and not label secular Buddhists with names like pretentious, etc. If you had other negative things to say about secular Buddhism without labels and name calling; well so be it, I'd have to deal with your opinions for what they are.
    Just as I'm asking you to do with my opinions.
    Jeffreyvinlyn
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    http://emodernbuddhism.com/

    Modern Buddhism is actually also a very good book :)
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    The buddha taught about ending suffering - he did not teach us to be religious...
  • What if ending suffering is the essence of religion, @anataman.

    Different people have different warning bells regarding words and regardless of the existence of a dictionary. Dictionaries are a modern thing that happened after the printing press. Dictionaries are not an arbiter of meaning. They are just a collection of meanings as abstracted from the direct communication of beings. In some cases it is like what humpty dumpty said, "words mean what I say they mean."

    For one person religion rings a warning bell. For another religion and faith in the triple gem is sound as a pound.
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    @Jeffrey Forget the dictionary, you may be right if ending suffering is the essence of all religions, but the evidence contradicts this view - here are Fanatical Religious Extremist views:








    I have known many practicing Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews & Christians - lovely people all of them, but I have also had personal experience of radicalised muslims and to a very much lesser extent radical christians (at a London University 20 years ago). I was not impressed and this is not anti-islam/christian, its about radicalised indoctrinated religion, and the effects of poor understanding and bad leaders… Religion is one of the greatest sources of suffering in the world…

    Buddhism is about the alleviation of suffering, and I challenge anyone to convince me otherwise. Buddhism is not a religion, but some people may feel they should revere an object, and that is fine, but don't become defensive about it to the point where insane belief predominates. People make choices. Sometimes they are wrong, but realise motivation, intention and right and wrong and don't try to defend the indefensible, with an interpretation of a belief in the unspoken' s word.

    Today in the UK we heard about the evidence presented for the off-duty soldier who was run over and then repeatedly stabbed (no macheted, with attempted beheading) to death in South East London - and these 2 people said they acted out of self defence… NO they were cold-blooded murderers and very few people could possibly doubt it. Some people are sick and some religious leaders are worse for condoning it - ignorance is ignorance is ignorance, that can be overcome. Some people may behave like cancers…


    Contemporary buddhism is not a religion it is an meditation with intelligent discourse, on the experience of here and now, .

    matthewmartin
  • matthewmartinmatthewmartin Amateur Bodhisattva Suburbs of Mt Meru Veteran
    Chaz said:

    In fact, considering I live in a civilized country that still has one of the highest child mortality rates in the world, I'd ask just how good is our "modern medicine"

    You're in Afghanistan? US is 34th out of 188 countries. You have to limit your numbers to the worst county or neighborhood in the US (like SE Washington DC) to get numbers that bad.

    The difference between the countries with the lowest infant mortality (Scandinavian countries) vs the US, has to do with distribution of resources-- the Nordic countries chose universal health care, the US chose a strictly free market method that leaves gaps in coverage.

    The difference is not due to the Nordic countries sticking with traditional medicine, adopting alternative medicine or rejecting science. The reason why the US has such a crappy system isn't because scientists and researchers recommended it, its because those with resources and money cling tightly too them and figure if a penny is given to the poor, the poor will want the rest too, i.e. it's a matter of power and politics and in this question, the scientists don't have any say.

    Placebos are great things, when I was in Russia and was sick, the mother of the house plied me with all sorts of crack nostrums. I knew they weren't going to fix me, but it was a nice way for her to show that she cared if her guest was feeling sick. Now if I had strep throat, I would have gone for a swab test & taken a course of antibiotics instead (or in addition to traditional care-- again it's nice to know that people care). I don't mind things that work via the mind, after all, that how meditation works, via the mind.

    Sorry for going off topic. I'm a stickler for numbers.
  • anataman said:

    How about we seek to define 'modern buddhism' in a catch phrase:

    'Modern Buddhism is how we are practicing now!'

    Well in that light: A while back I started a dictionary of Buddhist terms in English rather than Sanskrit or...and I called it "English From A Buddha's Tart. " I don't think that was well received-oh well. It's yours if you want it. mtgby


  • MatMart you said: Sorry for going off topic. I'm a stickler for numbers." Well in that case maybe you would like to know that in USSR they don't count child alive until he is over 1 year. That probably helps their statistics. Other countries play similar games to make there numbers look good. Honest #s are hard to come by. You have to look close.
    USA has (had) the best medical system in the world and we have the easy stat to calculate, to prove it=the expected life span. I think we are # 1 and even though we are quickly destroying our system that # will probably stay up there for a while. It takes time to let people die. Best
  • zenff said:

    We have to look with our own eyes and incorporate the essence of Buddhism in our present-day understanding of our world.

    But how do we know what the "essence" is, when we're looking at ancient teachings through a modern lens?

    The heart of Buddhism remains when we scrap the naive ideas and the superstitions.
    Karma and rebirth, supernatural powers, are not proven facts; but for some people they are part of their religious beliefs. It is of course their right to believe what they wish, but I would not call them modern.

    I think it is possible to be religious in my heart and a practicing Buddhist and include modern skeptical and scientific attitudes. I feel that as liberating.
    I was raised with a faith based religion. I can’t kick out one type of ancient nonsense out the door and then invite some other ancient nonsense to take its place.

    In my liberation from faith it helped to compare religions. How can people seriously say that the bizarre stories which are told in other religions are nonsense and then take their own - absolutely similar - stuff and fall for it?
    MaryAnnelobster
  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    zenff said:



    The heart of Buddhism remains when we scrap the naive ideas and the superstitions.
    Karma and rebirth, supernatural powers, are not proven facts; but for some people they are part of their religious beliefs. It is of course their right to believe what they wish, but I would not call them modern.

    Then what would you call them?

    Here's some antonyms ....

    old
    old-fashioned
    past (doesn't make sense)
    future (I like that one!)
    ancient
    antiquated
    obsolete
    outdated
    passe

    Most of those are pretty negative. Some border on pejorative. I'm sure you're not trying to be negative, just like Mary Ann, but the pitfall is that that it's nearly impossible to take a position like yours without risking negativity towards others or at least placing oneself above others. You're positing an extreme.

    Thus you may be missing what is the essence, the heart of Buddhism.
    I was raised with a faith based religion. I can’t kick out one type of ancient nonsense out the door and then invite some other ancient nonsense to take its place.
    Or perhaps "modern" nonsense? Plenty of that going around ..... :rolleyes:
    In my liberation from faith it helped to compare religions. How can people seriously say that the bizarre stories which are told in other religions are nonsense and then take their own - absolutely similar - stuff and fall for it.
    Yes, we all do that. We take those things that culture has hard-wired into our makeup and we fall for it as if it was The Real Deal. Sometimes it can be subtle and sometimes gross, but it all ends up the same - nonsense.

    The heart of Buddhism, if it really has one, is Refuge - Refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. That's where it all begins. You're not really practicing Buddhism if you haven't taken that first, very important step and everything Buddhist comes from that.
    cvalueJeffrey
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    MaryAnne said:


    "Modern" Buddhists are not all religious Buddhists; but in earlier times, all Buddhists were religious, and I imagine no one questioned that at all.

    I think as a whole Buddhism is less religious than it used to be, probably due to the gradual secularisation of modern societies.
    So are you saying that "Modern Buddhism" means "non-traditional"? Or are you saying it means "non-religious"? Or something else?
  • MaryAnneMaryAnne Veteran
    edited November 2013
    @SpinyNorman

    What you quoted there was from a reply to another post... what I posted below is cut n pasted from my original post waaaaay up the thread, which answers the question; What is Modern Buddhism:

    I always assumed it meant modern as how we apply the basics to our lives today, as opposed to times before technology, modern medicine, and the awareness that 'religion' is mythology...


    However, I agree- I also believe that Buddhism -in our time- is much less religious than it was 200, 500, 1000 years ago, or more.
    Science has replaced much of the superstition and religion that 'answered the questions' for people regarding life, health, mental illness, and our planet and universe.
    Remember, stars were once thought to be lanterns for the Gods... and the Earth was thought to be flat, and good karma/luck bad karma/luck played a huge part in people lives... almost to the point they thought they were 'powerless' to change things in their lives.

    I would hesitate to say that "modern" Buddhism means any one, singular thing, though. I don't think that would ever happen with Buddhism, or any other religion or spiritual path, either.
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    I'm not sure that "modern Buddhism" means much atall really. ;)
  • ^^ Well collectively you may be right, but individually, it's apparent everyone has their own ideas / definition. :)
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    MaryAnne said:

    ^^ Well collectively you may be right, but individually, it's apparent everyone has their own ideas / definition. :)

    Yes, that's the problem.

    ;)
  • @Chaz, you said:

    "The heart of Buddhism, if it really has one, is Refuge - Refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. That's where it all begins. You're not really practicing Buddhism if you haven't taken that first, very important step and everything Buddhist comes from that."

    Do you really believe this ^ is what makes Buddhism a "religion", or 'religious'?
    I disagree. I have taken refuge, I follow the precepts, honor the 4 noble truths and 8 fold path.... that makes me a Buddhist.

    I do not believe in demons, gods, treating the Suttras like the Buddhist Bible, hell realms, and the like.
    I can't fully commit (without doubts) to the ideas of inescapable Karma, reincarnation, etc.
    These are the religious /superstitious beliefs of Buddhism. And I am not using the word superstition or superstitious with any sort of derision. It's a word with a viable definition in this context.

    vinlynJeffrey
  • MaryAnneMaryAnne Veteran
    edited November 2013

    MaryAnne said:

    ^^ Well collectively you may be right, but individually, it's apparent everyone has their own ideas / definition. :)

    Yes, that's the problem.

    ;)

    Problem? Naah, just look at it as 'diversity'. ;)
    vinlyn
  • matthewmartinmatthewmartin Amateur Bodhisattva Suburbs of Mt Meru Veteran
    What to call non-secular Buddhism without being derogatory about it: faith based.
    vinlyn
  • What to call non-secular Buddhism without being derogatory about it: faith based.

    Good Point. I will try to remember that term from now on. Thanks.
    Perhaps then people won't get so defensive....
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    zenff said:


    The heart of Buddhism remains when we scrap the naive ideas and the superstitions.
    Karma and rebirth, supernatural powers, are not proven facts; but for some people they are part of their religious beliefs. It is of course their right to believe what they wish, but I would not call them modern.

    I think it is possible to be religious in my heart and a practicing Buddhist and include modern skeptical and scientific attitudes. I feel that as liberating.
    I was raised with a faith based religion. I can’t kick out one type of ancient nonsense out the door and then invite some other ancient nonsense to take its place.

    In my liberation from faith it helped to compare religions. How can people seriously say that the bizarre stories which are told in other religions are nonsense and then take their own - absolutely similar - stuff and fall for it?

    Bravo!

    Dennis1
  • matthewmartinmatthewmartin Amateur Bodhisattva Suburbs of Mt Meru Veteran
    Dennis1 said:

    Other countries play similar games to make there numbers look good. Honest #s are hard to come by. You have to look close

    If the numbers are all fiction, then no one can use them to promote either side of the argument. Without statistics and some confidence in them the statement that "Country X has the highest child or infant mortality in the world" is nonsense. But why would the collective bureaucracy of the world want to lie? If government didn't care about using the statistics in the bureaucracy for their own purposes (and that would require some level of accuracy to be useful to them.) and were just using them to impress each other, then everyone would claim no mortality what so ever-- when it comes to dropped babies, what's acceptable? 14 or 0? Countries aren't reporting zero mortality. If they are lying to impress the world, then Afghanistan is incompetent at lying. If the US is lying and actually has rates worse than the 3rd world, then 1000s of local jurisdictions controlled by opposing parties somehow managed to coordinate. In a country that can't even coordinate pass basic legislation to fund the government, that much cooperation seems unlikely.

    Lets just agree to individually believe what ever we want to believe regardless to data and return to the topic of the thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.