Would Buddha be appalled at the state of Buddhism today?

[StarryNightshade]

Despite identifying with Hindu-Dharma, I hold a special place in my heart for the Buddha and revere him as such. If I were to go back into full-on Buddhism, there are plenty of schools to choose from: ranging from the austere Theravada, to the meditative Zen, to the mystical Tibetan.

However, do many (if not most or all) sects of Buddhism go against what Buddha taught?

Most secular western Buddhists claim that what eastern Buddhists are doing goes against what Buddha had taught. That it went from ones mans philosophy on the nature of humankind to a full blown devotional religion; complete with all of the ritualistic trappings. Never minding the fact that I think middle class westerners have done more harm than good to Buddhism in general, do they have a point?

All Buddha really taught was what he considered to be the flaws of the nature of humankind and how we could overcome it. Everything else (gods, rituals, scriptures), while not prohibited per se, aren't really necessary. Yet, in the countries where Buddhism spread to, the folk deities would eventually be assimilated into Buddha Dharma and give birth to very unique (and in some cases highly syncretic) schools of Buddhism. Some incorporated Hindu deities (in the case of Sri Lanka and Nepal), others east asian deities and Taoism (Chinese and Japanese Mahayana), and in some cases Buddhism was simply applied to the already dominant folk religions of the region (such as in Tibet).

So what do you think? Are the bulk of Buddhists completely missing the point of Buddha Dharma? Or is it all just the natural evolution of philosophical and religious thought?

 

[Revoltingest]

He wouldn't be appalled.
And I would invite him to lunch.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Also, just FYI, I used the word "appalled", because another Hindu whom I was conversing with said that Buddha "would be appalled to know that there are Buddhists who revere Hindu or Shinto gods and goddesses".

 

[Revoltingest]

Also, just FYI, I used the word "appalled", because another Hindu whom I was conversing with said that Buddha "would be appalled to know that there are Buddhists who revere Hindu or Shinto gods and goddesses".

I believe that he wouldn't have unrealistic expectations for humanity.
He would simply address what conditions he finds.

Btw, I'm no expert on the subject, but I did read Siddhartha.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The "state" of Buddhism would reflect the teachings.

 

[LuisDantas]

If Buddhism is the search for skillfull means and religious wisdom, it is only natural that there will be a lot of misconceptions and mispractice indeed.

I don't think that would come as much of a surprise to the Tathagata.

As for syncretism, while I am no great fan of it, it must be noted that it is not necessarily harmful in and of itself; it is just a challenge to effective preservation and transmission of doctrine. It can even bring renewed and improved understanding of Dharma when succesfully negotiated, which I will readily grant to be easier said than done.

Then again, having access to undisturbed transmission from wise teachers is a great advantage, but no assurance of succesfull learning, either.

Even succesfull learning is pointless if it is not applied, and that means choosing to interact with other people and other beliefs sooner or later. If a Buddhist does not know how to or chooses not to keep true to his religion - consciously or otherwise - one can only assume that he lacked the necessary affinity or motivation, and it is not always clear that it is for the worse. People can take unexpected turns without really being in the wrong.

The bottom line is that we should be of course aware of demographical trends, syncretisms and major divergences, but they should be addressed on the proper level, which is that of testing and applying our Dharma.

There are significant dangers in getting too attached to the perception that people are being too theistic, too atheistic, too native, too foreign, too literate, too spontaneous, too rigorous, too casual, too syncretic or too closely-minded to be "proper" Buddhists. The validity or lack thereof of each person's Dharma should not be pressuposed without a good reason or clear testing.

In a sense, we all "go against what Buddha taught" to the extent that we all fail to be as wise and as dutiful as he was. That does not have to be a big deal - and more to the point, we owe it to ourselves not to let it become such a big deal as to bring disturbance that hinders our clarity of thought and vision. The challenges that we have to face will be what they will be; no point in claiming that they somehow should have been different. Things are as they are.

 

[LuisDantas]

Also, just FYI, I used the word "appalled", because another Hindu whom I was conversing with said that Buddha "would be appalled to know that there are Buddhists who revere Hindu or Shinto gods and goddesses".

Or he might find it funny, or advise them to let go of Buddhism and follow their true Dharmas, or he might want to ask them whether they realize what they truly want.

 

[StarryNightshade]

If Buddhism is the search for skillfull means and religious wisdom, it is only natural that there will be a lot of misconceptions and mispractice indeed.

I don't think that would come as much of a surprise to the Tathagata.

As for syncretism, while I am no great fan of it, it must be noted that it is not necessarily harmful in and of itself; it is just a challenge to effective preservation and transmission of doctrine. It can even bring renewed and improved understanding of Dharma when succesfully negotiated, which I will readily grant to be easier said than done.

Then again, having access to undisturbed transmission from wise teachers is a great advantage, but no assurance of succesfull learning, either.

Even succesfull learning is pointless if it is not applied, and that means choosing to interact with other people and other beliefs sooner or later. If a Buddhist does not know how to or chooses not to keep true to his religion - consciously or otherwise - one can only assume that he lacked the necessary affinity or motivation, and it is not always clear that it is for the worse. People can take unexpected turns without really being in the wrong.

The bottom line is that we should be of course aware of demographical trends, syncretisms and major divergences, but they should be addressed on the proper level, which is that of testing and applying our Dharma.

There are significant dangers in getting too attached to the perception that people are being too theistic, too atheistic, too native, too foreign, too literate, too spontaneous, too rigorous, too casual, too syncretic or too closely-minded to be "proper" Buddhists. The validity or lack thereof of each person's Dharma should not be pressuposed without a good reason or clear testing.

In a sense, we all "go against what Buddha taught" to the extent that we all fail to be as wise and as dutiful as he was. That does not have to be a big deal - and more to the point, we owe it to ourselves not to let it become such a big deal as to bring disturbance that hinders our clarity of thought and vision. The challenges that we have to face will be what they will be; no point in claiming that they somehow should have been different. Things are as they are.

Excellent answer! :clap

 

[StarryNightshade]

Or he might find it funny, or advise them to let go of Buddhism and follow their true Dharmas, or he might want to ask them whether they realize what they truly want.

So would you say there anything inherently wrong with Buddhists who do revere deities from others faiths? Specifically Dharmic or Asian folk deities?

I mean, like you had mentioned, people do get too caught up on what is means to be "Buddhist" and people should just follow their Dharma. Regardless of it's demographics or syncretic nature.

 

[LuisDantas]

So would you say there anything inherently wrong with Buddhists who do revere deities from others faiths? Specifically Dharmic or Asian folk deities?

Hardly. Bhakti practice can be very beautiful and fruitful indeed. It would be a shame to attempt to deny it from certain people.

More to the point, Buddhism as I understand it isn't atheistic in the sense of forbidding people to hold concepts of deities or to draw inspiration from them. Even believing in their literal existence isn't really out of line, although it goes somewhat at odds with the Buddhadharma. But ultimately the Dharma has to be validated by personal perception, and perhaps nowhere is that more true than in the very personal field of how many and which deities one shall believe in and how to relate to them.

I mean, like you had mentioned, people do get too caught up on what is means to be "Buddhist" and people should just follow their Dharma. Regardless of it's demographics or syncretic nature.

I guess at some point I would not call them Buddhists. That means very little beyond that we would lack a certain set of shared beliefs and language. I might well feel hurt or disappointed by that.

I get hurt or disappointed rather easily, often by silly or misguided reasons.

 

[Sees]

Also, just FYI, I used the word "appalled", because another Hindu whom I was conversing with said that Buddha "would be appalled to know that there are Buddhists who revere Hindu or Shinto gods and goddesses".

In the past I read every mention of Gods, Deities, Devas, etc. which I could find attributed to Buddha....my thoughts were people tend to project their own atheism on to him and his teachings.

Similar thing is done with Taoist traditions. It's more about atheistic "food for the soul" than anything - options for psychological, spiritual, mystical paths/practices/t-shirt without what is seen as superstition, magic, etc. including theism....especially polytheism. Buddha's lack of focus on something shifts to complete rejection.

 

[LuisDantas]

In the past I read every mention of Gods, Deities, Devas, etc. which I could find attributed to Buddha....my thoughts were people tend to project their own atheism on to him and his teachings.

I agree to a point. I believe the Tathagata cared a lot less - and had a lot less reason to care - about either theism or atheism than we currently do.

In fact, I believe even the early Christians and perhaps Muslims cared a lot less about those matters as well.

In my admitedly amateur opinion, there was a lot of undue exacerbation of the importance of belief in the last few centuries, largely because Christianity and Islam both emphasized the idea of belief in God as a source of brotherhood and unity. Not something I can get behind of, frankly, but maybe I would feel differently if I were in their places.

In any case, the end result is that there is a lot of discrimination against atheism in many of the more widespread religions of the current times. It was perhaps unavoidable that atheists would seek refuge in religions that did not commit that mistake and even "color" them somewhat as atheistic, if only because it has become such a big deal that yes, we lack belief in any deities.

Not a mistake IMO, nor a big deal except by the circunstance that it happened as a reaction to the idea that theism is somehow necessary for everyone.

Similar thing is done with Taoist traditions. It's more about atheistic "food for the soul" than anything - options for psychological, spiritual, mystical paths/practices/t-shirt without what is seen as superstition, magic, etc. including theism....especially polytheism. Buddha's lack of focus on something shifts to complete rejection.

I don't disagree as such, but who knows whether he would not make that shift himself if he lived in these times? Acknowledging and dealing properly with the actual social circunstances that we meet is very much a skillfull mean.

 

[StarryNightshade]

In the past I read every mention of Gods, Deities, Devas, etc. which I could find attributed to Buddha....my thoughts were people tend to project their own atheism on to him and his teachings.

Similar thing is done with Taoist traditions. It's more about atheistic "food for the soul" than anything - options for psychological, spiritual, mystical paths/practices/t-shirt without what is seen as superstition, magic, etc. including theism....especially polytheism. Buddha's lack of focus on something shifts to complete rejection.

I essentially agree. People in the west seem to be jaded by the Judeo-Christian idea of "god", so they reject anything that doesn't match the omniscient deity archetype and try to claim that they know what Buddha really taught over 2,500 years ago.

Then again, by this point, I don't think anyone 100% knows.

 

[LuisDantas]

I essentially agree. People in the west seem to be jaded by the Judeo-Christian idea of "god", so they reject anything that doesn't match the omniscient deity archetype and try to claim that they know what Buddha really taught over 2,500 years ago.

Such a mistake definitely occurs, although one will be hard-pressed to evidence who exactly commits it without resorting to personal judgement.

Then again, there is little point in dwelling in doubt and uncertainty simply as a defense against that danger. At some point is it just necessary and wise to make our own decisions and accept the risk of having misunderstood something minor or major.

tl;dr: We all must pursue what we believe to be valid, and be prepared to learn better if it comes to that.

 

[Secret Chief]

He wouldn't be appalled.
And I would invite him to lunch.

I think you're right. And if he can eat pork, then I can have a beer.

 

[Aupmanyav]

He said 'middle path'. With a beer or two, you are still on the middle path. Deities were there in his time also. He said how you conduct yourself is important for your happiness and removal of sorrow. He would still advocate the noble eight-fold path. I do not think anyone can find fault with that. Speaking as a Hindu - He was the ninth avatara of Lord Vishnu. Cannot to wrong. Hail Buddha.

 

[Secret Chief]

He said 'middle path'. With a beer or two, you are still on the middle path. Deities were there in his time also. He said how you conduct yourself is important for your happiness and removal of sorrow. He would still advocate the noble eight-fold path. I do not think anyone can find fault with that. Speaking as a Hindu - He was the ninth avatara of Lord Vishnu. Cannot to wrong. Hail Buddha.

And, like everyone else, he was of his time and place and influenced as such. In this he was as syncretic as us all. His Dharma was forged within the culture and experience of his life.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think it was equanimity the Buddha was expressing. A balence whereas if one is appalled by the changes and paths Buddhism had traversed from it's inception to now, could be seen as a "failure" in a respect as which to be appalled by, yet still a "success" by which being appalled does not really apply as to how Buddhism has blossomed to its present form as a religion.

I think the Buddha likely will have recognized this and continue unabated in view of the multifaceted manner as to how Buddhism changed and adapted over the centuries.

 

[von bek]

I do not believe the Buddha would be appalled, mainly because the mental defilements responsible for feeling "appalled" have been permanently eradicated in his mind.

Furthermore, the Buddha predicts that one day knowledge of Buddhism will vanish from this world. Unlike some other religions, most Buddhists do not expect that Buddhism will one day conquer the planet...

All compounded things decay.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But there will be other Buddhas for 'Dhamma Chakka ppavattana' (Skt. Dharmachakra pravartana) when dhamma vanishes from this world (Kālachakra). Krishna said:

"Yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānirbhavati, Bhārata;
abhyutthānam adharmasya, tadātmānam srijāmyaham."