Would Buddha be appalled at the state of Buddhism today?

[LuisDantas]

Buddhist monks sometimes burn themselves to death and do street protests against governments, is that what Buddhism teaches?

Not in those exact words, but that is to be expected.

Self-imolation, as I understand it, was a rare event and politically motivated as well. A form of protest.

Political protest, of course, is a legitimate expression for anyone, including monks.

 

[von bek]

I guess I just disagree then. Yours is a surprising opinion to see held.

I pretty much agree with him. One of the greatest threats to the future of the sangha, in my opinion, is the continued spread of materialist philosophy under the guise of dhamma.

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe you want to give me some examples?

 

[jusjamroc]

According to the legend, the historical Buddha achieved enlightenment and full liberation from karma and rebirth.

Apparently he did this by breaking all attachments especially to the physical world which he said was illusionary or empty by nature.

Thus, also being empty in nature. His reaction to the state of buddhism today would also be empty.

The path to enlightenment is a hard path to follow and their are many obstacles on the path that will distract the searcher on his path.

These include the many religious interpretations of Dharma.

The valiant and brave spriritual warrior must inquire into the true nature of all endevours in order to break down all illusion and attachment to that illusion.

The world includes billions of beings including several billion humans, among this amount of beings there are only a few who are enlightened or on the true path to becoming enlightened in this life (with such well respected teachers including the Dalai Lama etc not being included among those who have attained full enlightenment).

Many, through their ignorance and attachment will redicule you, especailly those who are extremely materialistic who damm all relgious practice and regard such activities as ignorance. This is because they are ignorant and have attachments so are driven by their attachments.

Remember this, todays complex circumstances are not too dissimilar to that of the time of the historical Buddha.

As although the Buddha may have been enlightened, he lived in a world of people who were not and came up against much critisism by those who were unenlightened who still were driven by their attachement.

But this is the essense of Buddhism. No attachment. No reaction. What ever is going on in the illusionary world.

If you want to reach enligtenment. I recommend that you do your best to cut all attachment to the material world.
Follow this simple formula:

Remove yourself from the busy world (no tv, no computer games, nothing that excites the mind)

Cultivate pure motivation actions that do not cause attachment. (attain selflessness bodhichitta)

Eat a vegetarian diet.

Refraim from all intoxicants (as these cloud and obsure the mind, and cause attachement/addiction)

spend your time peacefully study religious books with positive focus (as this helps you from staying focussed on the path).

Preserve sexual energies (as sex also stirs up attachment)

meditate a little daily. simple breathing meditation to help gain control over mind and let go of attachments.

If you experience Dharmakaya (white light) during meditation, do not be scared. Let go of the fear.

Good luck.

P.S. while there is much to learn from experienced practitioners in this world, try not to put too much reliance on them, as they may be more attached and less selfless than you may first think.
Putting too much value on a teacher may lead you a stray from your own path and inhibit your progress.
The only true help is self help.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Still, surely superstition is more of a problem for it than such misunderstandings.

Of course not. These are not just misunderstandings. They are the complete subversion of any recognisable spirituality and spiritual effort, any sense of the sacred and transcendent. In fact, you could say such misunderstandings are superstition themselves, but stretched to a immense degree.

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course not. These are not just misunderstandings. They are the complete subversion of any recognisable spirituality and spiritual effort, any sense of the sacred and transcendent. In fact, you could say such misunderstandings are superstition themselves, but stretched to a immense degree.

Doesn't ring a bell, I'm afraid. Maybe you could give me some pointers?

Maybe you are talking about subversions such as Rajneesh, Sathya Sai, Theosophy or Soka Gakkai?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Maybe you want to give me some examples?

I do not know how influential they are. But New Atheist types, like Susan Blackmore, have even tried to draw parallels between Buddhism and their materialist viewpoints. For example, serious reductionist materialism rejects, as Hume did, the idea of a continuous self, so they have drawn parallels between this an the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta. But, of course, this materialist idea of the lack of a self is essentially nihilistic (and they are keen to remove any spiritual aspects from their views), whereas the Buddhist doctrine is supremely positive and spiritual.

 

[LuisDantas]

I do not know how influential they are. But New Atheist types, like Susan Blackmore, have even tried to draw parallels between Buddhism and their materialist viewpoints.

And that is... a problem?

I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.

For example, serious reductionist materialism rejects, as Hume did, the idea of a continuous self, so they have drawn parallels between this an the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta. But, of course, this materialist idea of the lack of a self is essentially nihilistic (and they are keen to remove any spiritual aspects from their views), whereas the Buddhist doctrine is supremely positive and spiritual.

The difference being...?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Doesn't ring a bell, I'm afraid. Maybe you could give me some pointers?

Maybe you are talking about subversions such as Rajneesh, Sathya Sai, Theosophy or Soka Gakkai?

No, I'm talking about subversions like Westerners and Westernised Easterners who try to take any sense of the sacred, religious, and genuinely spiritual out of Buddhism, not to mention serious spiritual effort and discipline, and try to equate it to a secular, naturalistic lifestyle philosophy. A serious acquaintance with Buddhism in the East will show just how inaccurate such viewpoints are.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

And that is... a problem?

Of course, because of the radical difference, indeed complete opposition, in ethos and mentality between New Atheism and traditional Buddhism.

The difference being...?

I find it strange you cannot see the difference. Clearly, one is part of a spiritual path to reach meaningful enlightenment. The other is a nihilistic viewpoint in which the lack of self has no positive aspects to it, no spiritual insights, just despair. In traditional Buddhism, Anatta is, as I said, a positive thing. It doesn't engender despair, but is in fact celebrated. Marco Pallis tells of a Tibetan Buddhist mentor of his whose wife was even called selfless (in the sense of Anatta).

 

[Brinne]

According to the legend, the historical Buddha achieved enlightenment and full liberation from karma and rebirth...

I snipped the original quote because it was too lengthy.

Anywho, I think that is an interesting interpretation but maybe not necessarily the sole correct one. Many people interpret the "removal of attachment" aspect of Buddhism not with detaching yourself from anything but as a way of achieving unity.

Allow me to explain. For one to have attachment, there must be two things; the attached and something that attached attaches to. I've heard interpretations that says the Buddha was saying that we can abolish attachment through unity; think of Lao Tzu and his belief that labels corrupt things and truly we are all one, we just create an illusion that everything is separate when everything is related to each other. Some food for thought.

Speaking of food, vegetarianism is something I find a shaky subject. I do not think the Buddha would condone vegetarianism if it was physically harmful to a person or impossible for somebody.

Lastly, I think it's best to remember that teachings are always open to interpretation. If there was on set single path to enlightenment surely we'd all be enlightened, but it's different for everybody. Some may reach it through prayer, some through mantras, some through meditation, some through service, some through study, ect. ect. Everyone practices differently for a different reason IMO, the Tibetans practice Vajrayana Buddhism because it benefits them spiritually and aids them in enlightenment, the Zen Buddhists of Japan practice a completely different form of Buddhism not because one is wrong and the other is right but because they are different medicines for the same ailment; if you'll take the metaphor. Similarly how some treatments won't work for some people, it may work wonders for another.

Here is an AWESOME video about varied practice. While it's mostly directed towards home shrines in the Buddhist tradition it gets a very good point across very easily.

[youtube]rcv075b_LJc[/youtube]

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course, because of the radical difference, indeed complete opposition, in ethos and mentality between New Atheism and traditional Buddhism.

I find it strange you cannot see the difference. Clearly, one is part of a spiritual path to reach meaningful enlightenment. The other is a nihilistic viewpoint in which the lack of self has no positive aspects to it, no spiritual insights, just despair. In traditional Buddhism, Anatta is, as I said, a positive thing. It doesn't engender despair, but is in fact celebrated. Marco Pallis tells of a Tibetan Buddhist mentor of his whose wife was even called selfless (in the sense of Anatta).

I don't think I have ever met that problem. Maybe I would not recognize it if it fell over my head.

Maybe it literally does not exist for me?

 

[Aupmanyav]

According to the legend, .. help is self help.

If you cut off all contact with living, then, I think, there is no need for 'dhamma'. Buddha spoke to the people who participated in the world and had sorrows. He asked them to follow the noble Eight-fold path to escape from sorrows.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Speaking of food, vegetarianism is something I find a shaky subject. I do not think the Buddha would condone vegetarianism if it was physically harmful to a person or impossible for somebody.

1. Buddha said do not kill. 2. If you buy meat from the market, it is in a way killed for you. Buddha would not have done that. Buddha (is supposed to have and most probably did) ate something which he did not kill, nor asked to be killed for himself, thereby not earning any bad karma. Eat, if somebody gives you whatever which is left from his kitchen, beg only once for food and only what is given in one helping. Never ask for a second. That is how Indian all monks (whether Hindu, Jain or Buddhist) are instructed to do.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I don't think I have ever met that problem. Maybe I would not recognize it if it fell over my head.

Maybe it literally does not exist for me?

The point, surely, is not what you recognise or feel but what is the case.

Are you saying there is no difference between a Buddhism that consists, like Susan Blackmore's, of a radical materialism that denies a continuous self and any sort of transcendence, as well as most spiritual and moral effort and discipline, and which just aims at calmness and mindfulness within such a viewpoint; and a Buddhism that combines an immense sense of the sacred with a strict morality and beautiful and profound art and provides a genuine spiritual path to a transcendent bliss and perfection?

 

[psychoslice]

The Buddha that I know would not be appalled, he would know that whatever we believe in today is nothing but our imagination of what we believe our world to be, its all from the mind body organism. He would also know that we are all one, that we are all the Buddha, that we have forgotten that we are the Buddha, so yes, he would even think twice about being appalled, why would he ??.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Buddha that I know would not be appalled, he would ..

.. turn the 'dhamma wheel' again.

'Om Mani Padme Hum"

 

[LuisDantas]

The point, surely, is not what you recognise or feel but what is the case.

You realize I can say much the same thing.

Are you saying there is no difference between a Buddhism that consists, like Susan Blackmore's, of a radical materialism that denies a continuous self and any sort of transcendence,

Is such the case? And does Buddhism teach of a continuous self? At first glance it would seem to run counter to basic concepts such as anatta and anicca.

I never thought of Susan Blackmore as a "denier of any sort of transcendence", among other reasons because she seems to be a very decent human being, which disqualifies her from such a surprising accusation right off the bat. But maybe you are aware of some details that I failed to notice.

as well as most spiritual and moral effort and discipline, and which just aims at calmness and mindfulness within such a viewpoint; and a Buddhism that combines an immense sense of the sacred with a strict morality and beautiful and profound art and provides a genuine spiritual path to a transcendent bliss and perfection?

There is such a dychotomy? Are you sure? What leads you to conclude that there is?

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe it is just me, but there seems to be some unwarranted fear of analysis and reflexive attachment to a "traditional view" that may never have existed in the first place, and that is probably not worth "protecting" even if it did.

Far as I can tell, those are phantoms and fantasies of lost purity being missed.

 

[crossfire]

<...>

Speaking of food, vegetarianism is something I find a shaky subject. I do not think the Buddha would condone vegetarianism if it was physically harmful to a person or impossible for somebody.

<...>

First line of Buddha's first sermon after awakening:

"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding

Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion​

If eating meat was necessary for a person to be healthful, then not eating meat would be going towards the painful, ignoble, and unprofitable extreme of self-affliction.

In the Vinyata rules for monks and nuns, even the consumption of blood was allowed if it was deemed necessary in the case of an illness!