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.
Call for a new buddhism
Brian
Detroit, MI Moderator
An interesting article I found the other day.
It's a long read, but if you have time, you might really enjoy the alternative perspective presented here. The guy has a lot of good points:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/Buddhism.html
Thoughts?
It's a long read, but if you have time, you might really enjoy the alternative perspective presented here. The guy has a lot of good points:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/Buddhism.html
Thoughts?
0
Comments
The premise that buddhism as a religion must adapt to the modern world is certainly something that could be applied to any major religion. I mean is buddhism an "older" philosophy than chrisitianity? judiasm? Either way, i appreciate the fact that he chose to comment on buddhism since he obviously is buddhist.
So what has he said? Basically that in order to adapt to the modern world we need to do away with (in some ways) the components of buddhism which are based on the curture in which Siddhartha lived. I, for one, agree. I agree because this means that as a buddhist i would not be constrained into believing and following a number of rules or philosophical points which in todays light are just plain silly. I think that any religion that a person chooses to follow should not be structured in such a way that the person must be inconvienced by it. Not that buddhism does much, but to follow in the strictest sense you probably couldn't lead a normal life with a job, family, etc.
His comments about family and sex i think are right on the money. Repressing sexual desires do much more harm than good... the catholic church provides a good example of this. Avoidance of sex A. Inhibits your own personal development and B. does not allow others to be re-born into the world (which in my book is selfish if you think about it).
A discussion of sex leads into a discussion on love. Isolating yourself from the world and all worldly desires to better help yourself achieve enlightenment will prove to be a very difficult endeavor. Human beings are social creatures. Studies have shown that people who exist without regular contact with others or with out a significant other person in their life are very inclined to go mad. These are the types of people you send bombs through the mail and call themselves the Unabomber. We need others in our lives to feel whole. Thats just human nature. Plus, being in love makes people feel good about themselves. From a buddhist philosophy point of view, this is just another attatchment which will hold me back. Yes this may be the case but whos to say how much i might be held back by keeping to myself 24 hours aday?
Which leads me into the 4 Noble Truths. I agree for the most part with his comments on these. I feel that they must be re-interpreted for our modern world. WHen i first came to buddhism i disagreed right of the bat with the strict interpretation of the frst noble truth: that life is suffering. I don't think that life really is all suffering. I do agree that life is full of suffering. But suffering at every moment? Yes maybe in the grand scheme of things, but i know i wasn't suffering today when i played golf. I also think that he has a good point about what is "right." Again i feel like a re-interpretation in the context of the modern world is in order.
I was following the outline of the article but i digressed... so backing up...
What is relavent in buddhism? I think in some ways i am dissapointed that buddhism has become almost tipical in regards to the cermony and mistical aspects. These are some of the main reasons i left christianity. Luckily, buddhism has the advantage that you really can choose what works for you. I am no less a buddhist because i don't go to a temple once a week. Or once a month. Or ever. The path is one which we walk ourselves. In many ways interacting with other buddhists can help on the path, but it is by no means a necessity. Just like catholicism was foreces to bring its masses into the 20th centuty by allowing priests to say mass in the local language not just in latin, it would be advantageous to adapt buddhism in this way. Not that people have avoided this, but maybe it goes back to the culture buddhism was based on.
Okay a little voice in my head is telling me that i am starting to rant, so i am going to cut myself off...
Anyway i'd love to hear some thoughts and would gladly discuss.
Today was my son's birthday party, so it has been a hectic couple of days
Happy birthday to him! :birthday:
So what that has to do with this discussion is that because of this obsession, we tend to believe that asian peoples have "figured it out" so to say, and thus eastern philosophies such as Buddhism have some sort of eliteness or powerful reputation. Therefore, many times people are afraid to question anything that is "eastern".
The buddha himself said "Question everything!" and I think that is what Mr. Calder is saying, in a different way.
I think someone needs to come in here and disagree or something cause I could go for a good old fashioned debate
I'm gonna do another mass mail tonight, highlighting some of the exciting new conversations that you and I have been having
After oil, it will be something else that people want and it will magnify the greed and fear of those in charge. It won't be any better or worse than it is now.
Mindfullness and meditation are just two things that are indispensible in Buddhism.
The Dharma can still be obtained by using a new approach.
I was interested to read the article on 'A call for a new Buddhism'. Although it gave me a good chuckle, I must say that I didn't agree with most of it. Not that I'm saying it was wrong and I am not saying what I say is right. This is my opinion on it - what he said is not true, what I say is not true, that is the only truth.
The first point mentioned is sex. Now, Buddha apparently said something along the lines of - being celibate is not for everyone, only as part of a monks 'mind training'. I don't believe you have to be celibate to be a good buddhist, but it's more relevant that ever in today's society, full of porn, exploitation and easy stance on sex. The ethics of it is that sex should be between two loving, consenting adults. And one should not be adulterous. I strongly agree with this, being married myself I obviously have a sexual relationship with my wife and I have vowed to not sleep with another, something I will most definitely adhere to. I don't feel that is difficult, but so many people want more....
Something I found difficult to process when I first read about Buddhism, was about attachment to things, in particular material processions. As time has passed I interpret it like this (or at least this is how I use it to live my life). I still want things, but I ask myself, if 'I want it' or 'need it'. If I don't need it, I ask myself 'why do I want it', how will it benefit me, how will it benefit others? For me, it's more about being less attached to the things I own or want. eg - I just bought a nice shiny new Golf GTi, but I'm not attached to it, if it gets stolen, if it gets trashed I let it go, I won't dwell on it, as if I don't really own it at all. It's just a vehicle to get my from A to B. Admittedly it's a vehicle I 'wanted' and I think looks great, but that is as far as it goes, I didn't struggle to get it, I didn't harm anyone to get it, I have no further attachment to it.
Life is suffering - Well it is isn't it? Saying so is not pessimistic, it's realistic, in my opinion. Does anyone know of any person who has never encountered suffering at some point in life? Life itself is suffering if you are attached to it. If you are scared of dying, surely that's because you're attached to life, or your body? Fact is, people you know will die, you will die, become ill, ect. these are just a few examples of how we all will suffer at some point. Hence the 4 noble truths - if you can realize life is suffering and find the path to 'letting go' then there will be no suffering and you may become 'enlightened'.
The article mentions Buddhists 'not living life to the full' for one reason or another, I see it as the other way round and that most of us go through day to day just going through the motions, semi conscious, not truly experiencing the simple pleasure in life, real life, not delusional. Buddhism has taught me to appreciate just being, instead of doing and to be mindful. I appreciate things the way they are a lot more these days with this in mind and feel I am truly living, alive, awake, focused and positive.
There has not been a Buddhist war. Probably because Buddhists believe in Karma - cause and effect. In the example of Tibet, used in the article, there has been no retaliation because of the strong belief in Karma, and that every cause has an effect and every effect has a cause, so to retaliate would have an effect, a chain effect if you like. I like to treat people how I'd like to be treated and forgive and not retaliate and have chose this way to live.
I like Buddhismm, because to follow it, there are no rules, nothing set in stone, it's about ones self and a set of ethics that if followed will improve ones self and others around you. My interpretation Buddhism seems very different to what I read in the article about a new way.
There's loads more to say but I'm worried I may come across as too critical or arrogant! So I'll end with one last point that everything I've learned about Buddhism has been about love, again we all have different interpretations. I think the article should be called 'a call for a new religion/life philosophy'. True, all things change and all must accept this, Buddhism can be changed and adapted to modern living, as I have done for myself. But changing the core, the key principles to Buddhism is going to make it something else completely.
His take on the Four Noble Truths is close to the 'first' reading of dukkha. He fails to take into account many centuries of reflection and debate. Here is what Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh has to say
And this, of course, brings us to a statement which must bring a practising Buddhist up short: Unfortunately, this is not what the Buddha taught. The sublime and, once realised absurdly self-evident Truth is that we are the authors of much of our suffering. I cannot say 'all our suffering' because I have not yet reached a place where I can see that. But I bow to the Truth of samudaya, of the arising of suffering. And, as I meditate on the Second Noble Truth, there unfold before me the seeds of my suffering and the care with which I have tended, fed and watered them until they ripen for harvest.
Heartened by the Third Noble Truth, I know that suffering can cease. This is the Truth of nirodha, of cessation. Above all things, the Buddha taught that suffering can end. Yet Mr Calder portrays Buddhists as pessimistic and dour, whereas my own experience is of optimism and humour.
Where I agree absolutely is that the Wheel of Dharma continues to be turned. Buddhism is infinitely flexible in absorbing cultural myth in country after country. Indian Buddhism, Japanese Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, Chinese Buddhism: time after time, the prevailing mythos has been pressed into service of the Dharma.
Western Buddhism is already here. Engaged Buddhism is being discussed elsewhere on these boards. Masters such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sogyal Rinpoche speak in the language of the West, and new, Western Masters are arising.
I am very grateful to Mr Calder. I disagree with his analysis of the Dharma and I think he gets his facts wrong, leading to erroneous conclusions. But the honesty of his intent has enable me to return to the source and to reflect again on the First Turning of the Wheel.
And that goes for all the other posts too.... even the ones that say
"I don't think God has to play by any rules and I don't think I will ever comprehend what God truly is."
And so say all of us! So you see, it all counts in one way or another!
does this post belong here, or have i just ranted about myself again?
have a great day everyone
I wish this were true, but it is not. Tibet, for example, has a long and warlike past. In India, Asoka may have taken Refuge but he didn't give up the military oppression of his empire.
I think part of the problem is how religeons take such a hard-nosed stance on things. While I do not know what Buddhism is all about - it seems more encompassing of the human condition.
Catholicism taught and mandated centuries ago that when a priest blesses one of their wafers - it's just not symbolic of the teaching that "this is my body". It was mandated by man a long time ago that there is actually a mystical process that takes place where that bread is converted to flesh.
Now, in this age of somewhat-elightenment, we can prove that this magical process does not take place. But, it is still taught as being fact in the Catholic church.
I don't know if this is Buddhism or not - but I think any belief that takes the human condition into consideration - helps those who help themselves and helps those who helps others - is not a bad thing. And if we find, through science, magic or techonology 600 years down the road that things we hold to be true now are really not - I don't think that whatever is discovered will change the fact that there is still the human condition to "help yourself" and "help others".
Michael
I agree with a lot of what this person says - but, being that I truly am a neophyte in this "way of thinking" - I can't, at this point, go along with changing the Noble Truths. They seem quite basic. They don't have a lot of mystical mumbo-jumbo associated with them and they seem to be tenants that have withstood the test of time.
I do agree with the area entitled "Is traditional Buddhist compassion hollow?"
I would think that constantly thinking on suffering and death also removes the ability in ones life to enjoy life. I've never been into the thinking that constantly dwelling on pain, suffering, death, etc. If meditation is a way that one can "purify" themselves - why isn't also including compassion, love, helping our fellow man - also something that can help purify a person and ease their suffering and increase the love in their life?
I also like the idea of "not worshipping" a guru or monk or Buddha. It seems that Buddha was quite emphatic in stating that he was just and ordinary man. Christianity used to drive me nuts regarding this. There is scripture that basically states "call none holy except God". But we refer to the "holy person this", "the holy person that", people pray to icons, magnify humanty to that of a diety - people will rid themselves of their livelyhood to increase the coffers of the Pope, Jim Baker or Oral Roberts.
One of the things I appreciated and was drawn to was Buddha's humility.
Very good article.
Michael
Well said!
When Buddhism was introduced into China, the Chinese did create a Chinese version images of Buddha which were well received by the people then. Maybe the west can create a western Buddha's image.
Just to add: Life is suffering, because all of us cannot maintain constant happiness throughout our lives. We are living in a world of opposite polarities - (eg. Sadness and Happiness). Once you are in an environment where there are opposite extremes, there will be suffering. Because if there is happiness, then there will be sadness.
Comparative to the state of all enlighten beings where there is only oneness, with no notion of Sadness and Happiness. This is the only true happiness.
A very reliable materials about Buddhism: http://www.thubtenchodron.org/
It really nice to be here.
It is a common attitude, in any culture, but especially our modern, secular one (but with theistic roots), to reject quickly any doctrine, practice or belief with which we are not comfortable. But dispassion, or the ability to tolerate, in some manner, the uncomfortable, whether in the sensory, mental, emotional or spiritual realm, is a keynote in the Dharma. A fondness for truth, however ugly, is also very helpful in getting us beyond our own attractions & rejections of whatever.
I agree that these are the concern's of many people like myself that are just prepared to dip there toes in.
This is a great post Brian.. However their are solution's that are probably to be found is collective social responsability.
HH
I think that actually isn't this supposed to be the old Buddhism, as in the Dharma taught by the Siddharta Buddha himself?
I like the part where he drew a clear line between the compassion of Buddhism and Christianity. It's quite true I think. Although I might feel that it might vary from person to person. The key factor is still ATTITUDE.
Life is suffering. I think that it's too simplified. Perhaps when the Buddha had said this, he should have put in additional words. Life is suffering with a shit attitude.
Suffering is caused by desires and attachment. To me, suffering is caused by wronged desires and conditional attachment. I like Christ's Unconditional Love that serves to guide me for attachment, although I still hopelessly fail.
Suffering can be ended by overcoming them. OK not much debate here...
Overcoming them is through the Eightfold Path... I think to sum it up I think "Right Feeling" should be OK... I can curse F**K as an expression but then still be enlightened, because I don't use it to annoy people, perhaps just to say "Rats" or something. I may be none the wiser though.
To me Buddhism is all about "Loving-Kindness" and "Non-Attachment" and Christianity "Unconditional Love". My main core philosophy of my life. :rockon:
I think that actually isn't this supposed to be the old Buddhism, as in the Dharma taught by the Siddharta Buddha himself?
I like the part where he drew a clear line between the compassion of Buddhism and Christianity. It's quite true I think. Although I might feel that it might vary from person to person. The key factor is still ATTITUDE.
Life is suffering. I think that it's too simplified. Perhaps when the Buddha had said this, he should have put in additional words. Life is suffering with a shit attitude.
Suffering is caused by desires and attachment. To me, suffering is caused by wronged desires and conditional attachment. I like Christ's Unconditional Love that serves to guide me for attachment, although I still hopelessly fail.
Suffering can be ended by overcoming them. OK not much debate here...
Overcoming them is through the Eightfold Path... I think to sum it up I think "Right Feeling" should be OK... I can curse F**K as an expression but then still be enlightened, because I don't use it to annoy people, perhaps just to say "Rats" or something. I may be none the wiser though.
To me Buddhism is all about "Loving-Kindness" and "Non-Attachment" and Christianity "Unconditional Love". My main core philosophy of my life. :rockon:
Interesting analysis, Kind Pilgrim, of another interesting analysis.
Just treat them like some wise nice folks...I would not mind that!
Palzang
sanghatoday, tomorrow the world.
Well, good Palzang, I'm not sure I can follow you too far in this analogy.
I think I'd be running to-wards and through that doorway too fast to be doing any venerating. Now, if I had to stop and venerate someone (the gatekeeper, say) in order to be allowed through, venerate I would. But it would be a hasty and shallow performance and the bow not so deep, either.
That reminds me of a saying of Jesus in the Gospel According to Didymus Thomas, in which he said the scribes and Pharisees were like dogs guarding the manger. They would not eat the hay, neither would they allow the oxen to eat. (Spiritual wickedness keeping people from living the life that really should be theirs.)
So, arguably, this could cut at least two very different ways.
There's a paradigm in Classical Christianity, though, that says there's a four-legged stool upon which the faith-tradition is balanced, namely on 1) Scripture, 2) Tradition, 3) Reason, and 4) Experience. I've always found this formula, first expounded by John Wesley, both useful and enlightening.
I think that this four-legged firmament for weighing the truths and benefits of any faith tradition is not a bad idea. Is this not Buddhist practice, too?
If someone came along who could lead you out of suffering forever, would you venerate that person? Would you treat that person as someone special? It's like the door in the burning building. If you find that door, your entire being would be concentrated on getting through that door, wouldn't it? You wouldn't be thinking of anything else. If we really understood the nature of samsara, we would be foaming at the mouth to get out of it if there was any way to do it. So there is a way, the Buddha discovered it, and there are beings in the world today who can show us the way that he discovered. So we venerate those beings because of that. I wouldn't call that "bowing and scraping", would you? I'd call it simple gratitude. Look at it this way: if the Buddha himself were to walk through the door, would you venerate him? Would you prostrate to him? Would you treat him as well as you could? There's not a sliver of difference between one's teacher and the Buddha. That's the method. That's the reality. So why would you treat your teacher differently than the Buddha?
If you have trouble with the concept of thinking of someone as worthy of veneration and showing that person respect and devotion, I would offer that this because of ego and pride on your part. Teachers don't expect this sort of thing, you know, nor do they like it. But they tolerate it because it is good for the student. My teacher, for example, hates to have people prostrate to her, but she tolerates it because she knows it is good for the student to do that. Why is it good for the student? Because it generates merit, and merit is the fuel that keeps the student on the path. It generates merit because the student is paying homage to his/her own enlightened nature, which appears in the form of the teacher. Personally, my teacher would rather just be one of the girls and hang out like she used to hang out before she got recognized. I've heard many a teacher say that being recognized as a tulku is like receiving a jail sentence. So it isn't something they relish at all.
Palzang
Because the path to Buddhahood naturally springs forth from a feeling that there is ‘too much’ of one thing or ‘not enough’ of another, there is ‘birth and
extinction’, there is ‘delusion and enlightenment’ , there are ‘ordinary beings and Buddhas’. Yet, even though this is the way things are, still, we feel regret at a blossom’s falling and we loathe seeing the weeds envelop everything.
To undertake enlightening the whole universe through one’s training while carrying the burden of a self is a delusion: to enlighten oneself through training while urging all things onward is an awakening from delusion. To have a great awakening to one’s delusion is to be as all Buddhas are: to be greatly deluded within one’s enlightenment is to be as ordinary people are. Moreover, there are those folks who realize enlightenment on top of their enlightenment: there are those folks who are deluded within their delusion.
When Buddhas are truly Buddhas, They need not perceive that They Themselves are Buddha. Even so, having awakened to Their Buddha Nature, They will carry along with Themselves Their confirmation of Their Buddha Nature.
Dogen, from "On the Spiritual Question as it Manifests Before Your Eyes," third chapter in the Shobogenzo
I have seen dogmatism in Buddhism, some anyway. This over literal interpretation strikes me as very odd. As if we can just adopt the "scriptures" if they are even that and literally read them as unchangeable Truth, capital T. Everything changes and everything is dependent on the context of origination. Some of the things in the Pali canon for instance are clearly set to address a particular type of person, say, a Brahmin classed person. And those discourses are inflected by that audience. They do not necessarily hold as true for all beings for all time.
I take a rather more ethical and practical view of the principles. They work. They have promise and hope. They are a diagnosis and cure that seem to hold water. Better than most other theories or attempts to address such big questions. I have no patience with all the metaphysical mumbo jumbo. It doesn't relate to how I behave, my intentions, my practices, my regard for beings, my ethical commitments, and so on. And anyway if you wanna get doctrinal, the Buddha was reported to have said there are imponderables that are best left alone.
I think that the system laid out and then adapted by many different people and cultures is quite flexible while saying with a core set of principles. That means to me that there is plenty of room for a "new Buddhism." Why not? Sticking to the literality of the text strikes me as a form of clinging if not desperation, a desire for certainty and fixity when that is impossible. I say let Buddhism flourish in all its manifestations. We are not in a position to start up an Inquisition to burn heretics. Not even in a position to pass judgement on what is the "real" Buddhism. Not to be a weak relativist but rather what is called perspectivalism. Different lenses on the same thing. Not a "do your own thing" or "anything goes" but a more disciplined and careful approach to a complexity really beyond our capacity.
[SIZE=-1]Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the old masters; seek what they sought. ~Matsuo Basho[/SIZE]
I like that, pretty rock and roll....
Palzang! pleae go check the samsara thread in 101. I think I had a little personal breakthrough, and I was hoping you or elohim would give me your opinion.....
in addition, Im not sure we need a new buddhism as the system was meant to evolve from the start. Obviously you cant attach yourself to one way of learning, or one process as it is just as impermanent as anything else. So Buddhism is always new in every moment already....
I would make good use of that door but I would not vererate it. Someone said Buddhism is like a raft to get to the shore, but once you are there don't carry the raft around. I don't remember exactly where I found this analogy.
Yes, the Buddha is said to have given this particular simile, i.e., the simile of the raft. It is from the Majjhima Nikaya, and specifically, the Alagaddupama Sutta (MN 22).
Jason
Palzang
Point well taken. I just keep thinking that if I were literally out on the ocean on a raft I would rely on it for dear life but I just don't see myself venerating it under any circumstance...
let's not muddle the allegorical with the actual....!
I agree with Palzang on this one. I think a few folks are reading to deeply into the word venerate. Simply stated, the word means respect. You should respect your teachers, as they are trying to show you the doorway to exit the burning building called Samsara. It's not as though our teachers are standing before us saying "Kneel before Zod!!"
Now back to the article. I read about half of it then treated it as I would a bad T.V. show and turned it off. To me, it was nothing more than a drawn out rant by someone who seems to have become quite disillusioned with Buddhism. Personally, I felt that his interpretation of the four noble truths is WAY off especially stating that Buddhism has become the anti-life religion. I've read nowhere that Buddhism states "don't have fun" as the author would lead you to believe.
Secondly, it seemed to me that his interpretation of suffering is directly linked to attachment in every way shape and form. As to his opinion on right view, it doesn't seem that he did much research on exactly what is said of right view. It is not as he says " is a theocracy of Buddhist priests going to dictate to the sangha how to think and what to say?" My understanding of right view is to know that everything is impermanent and imperfect.
The author also seems to paint Buddhism as a doom-and-gloom religion. Hmmmmmm, I'm trying to think of the last time I saw H.H. the Dalai Lama standing at an altar screaming "ARMAGEDDON IS COMING!!!"
Well, I've gone on long enough and could further disect the article, but there is truly no need of it.
~Peace, Dave
PREPARE TO LEAP
In order to overcome selfishness, it is necessary to be daring. It is as though you were
dressed in your swimsuit, standing on the diving board with a pool in front of you, and
you ask yourself: “Now what?” The obvious answer is: “Jump.” That is daring. You
might wonder if you will sink or hurt yourself if you jump. You might. There is no
insurance, but it is worthwhile jumping to find out what will happen. The student warrior
has to jump. We are so accustomed to accepting what is bad for us and rejecting what is
good for us. We are attracted to our cocoons, our selfishness, and we are afraid of
selflessness, stepping beyond ourselves. So in order to overcome our hesitation about
giving up our privacy, and in order to commit ourselves to others’ welfare, some kind of
leap is necessary.
Chogyam Trungpa
Palzang
This is not an attempt to be flippant....
But I have known many make hasty and rash remarks, believing their motives to be good, just, critical, all-knowing and intelligent, only to find they were shooting themselves in the foot.
This is where "Idiot" View comes in... They simply weren't thinking outside the box, or seeing things as they really Are.... They were so 'bent' upon taking that leap, they weren't looking clearly. Goggles fogged up, maybe....?
This is where Right View and Right Intention come in...
In fact, if one measures each of the first three Noble Truths against the fourth, things become much clearer... using the Path not only as a Via Sacra away from the Reality of suffering, but using it to understand what Suffering is, and to act accordingly....
Right View, Intention, Speech, Action, Livelihood, Effort, Awareness (Mindfulness) and Meditation (Concentration) will all help enormously to see really clearly what is meant by Life is Suffering..... Why Life is suffering, And what the way out of suffering is.....
And so it is with Mr. Calder. Didn't apply himself correctly.
Leapt in with both feet, and got it hopelessly wrong.
Thud.
Ah, doubting whelk, there is the true paradox! If we don't jump, we shall never escape but, if we do, we may think we have 'got it wrong'.
Although I have no proof, no evidence, I have an intuition and it is this: we can never 'get it wrong' if we simply shift our attention from the personal to the universal. I think that this is the hidden message in the Christian gospel: there is no getting it wrong, only the next step, and we can take the leap in confidence or in doubt - it doesn't matter to the universe. If we do it with daring and confidence, we shall find the equanimity to weather whatever the consequences and there will be a corner of the universe (i.e. us) that will be happy, and that, for me, is the best I can do for the sake of all that is. Buddhism is teaching me to take the leap without expectations other than joy.