Would Buddha be appalled at the state of Buddhism today?

[Shuttlecraft]

Topic title: Would Buddha be appalled at the state of Buddhism today?
----------------------------------------------------------------

Another question could be- What would Buddha have thought of Jesus?

Incidentally, as a seeker of enlightenment, Buddha may well have sought out the old Jewish manuscripts to study, and seen in them prophecies of a coming Messiah and thought "gosh I hope I see him"
Jesus told his disciples-
"Many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which you see, and have not seen them, and to hear those things which you hear, and have not heard them" (Matt 13:17)

So perhaps Buddha was one of those "righteous men"?
After all, the ancient Jewish scriptures date from at least the time of Moses (1500 B.C.), so they'd been in the public domain for a thousand years before Buddha was born about 500 B.C..

 

[LuisDantas]

Topic title: Would Buddha be appalled at the state of Buddhism today?
----------------------------------------------------------------

Another question could be- What would Buddha have thought of Jesus?

That is a question for one of the non-DIR areas, though.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

That is a question for one of the non-DIR areas, though.

Sorry I forgot, so ignore the scoop I gave you about Jesus possibly referring to Buddha..

 

[LuisDantas]

It's alright. I do not believe Jesus existed.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

It's alright. I do not believe Jesus existed.

We'll have to start a topic sometime about what evidence there is for Buddha's existence too..

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh, I'm not certain he did exist either, although the evidence is considerably better and it matters far less as well.

 

[von bek]

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.

The reason I have access to the dhamma today, the reason I am able to read the Pali texts, the reason I am able to undertake meditation practices, the reason I am able to visit monks and nuns is because this tradition has been preserved for 2500 years. I want it to be here another 2500 years because I believe in its power and efficacy to lead beings out of suffering and into nibbana. Teachings that deny rebirth, that deny the deva, that deny immaterial realms of existence undermine what the Buddha is communicating. His worldview is not materialism. He categorically rejects nihilistic views with the same gusto that he rejects views of Self. This is what the texts record.

If you categorically reject the supernatural, the deva, rebirth, and immaterial realms but wish to call yourself a Buddhist you have the misfortune of having to explain away huge chunks of the tradition as it has been passed down. The very tradition that brought awareness of the Buddha and his dhamma to you in the first place.

 

[LuisDantas]

The reason I have access to the dhamma today, the reason I am able to read the Pali texts, the reason I am able to undertake meditation practices, the reason I am able to visit monks and nuns is because this tradition has been preserved for 2500 years. I want it to be here another 2500 years because I believe in its power and efficacy to lead beings out of suffering and into nibbana.

Sure.

Teachings that deny rebirth, that deny the deva, that deny immaterial realms of existence undermine what the Buddha is communicating.

As long as they claim to be a correct understanding of Buddhism, I guess they do. Who is doing that?

His worldview is not materialism. He categorically rejects nihilistic views with the same gusto that he rejects views of Self. This is what the texts record.

Agreed. Although I'm not so sure about what you mean here exactly with materialism.

If you categorically reject the supernatural, the deva, rebirth, and immaterial realms but wish to call yourself a Buddhist you have the misfortune of having to explain away huge chunks of the tradition as it has been passed down.

Is it even a misfortune rather than a duty? And is it really exclusive to non-Supernaturalists?

It really looks like an opportunity rather than a problem to me.

The very tradition that brought awareness of the Buddha and his dhamma to you in the first place.

Yes.

 

[von bek]

As long as they claim to be a correct understanding of Buddhism, I guess they do. Who is doing that?

The main person who springs to mind is Stephen Batchelor. Look, I'm sure he is a nice guy and I have no personal animosity towards him, I just deeply disagree with his approach.

Agreed. Although I'm not so sure about what you mean here exactly with materialism.

My short definition would be that materialism is the view that matter is the only ultimately real thing and serves as the First Cause for mind and all that is experienced. In materialism there is no rebirth because the mind is only seen as a specific property of a specific combination of matter and with the breaking up of that material form the mind it manufactures ceases without remainder.

Is it even a misfortune rather than a duty? And is it really exclusive to non-Supernaturalists?

What I mean is that it may be easier to simply say you are not a Buddhist but that you like a lot of what the Buddha teaches rather than saying you are a Buddhist and then having to explain to an interested person why you reject major portions of what the various Buddhist traditions have held to be true. The same thing applies to those who would call themselves Buddhist while affirming belief in an eternal Self or First Cause. (Though I will admit that in this case the "eternalist" is in an even more difficult position than the outright "nihilist". Both views though are problematic and not supported in what is recorded as the Buddha's teaching.)

 

[Twilight Hue]

We'll have to start a topic sometime about what evidence there is for Buddha's existence too..

It wouldnt really matter in light of a viable practice. For all intents and purposes, unlike Jesus, the Buddha dosent exist directly through that context as existing today, so it's essentially moot in that regard anyway.

 

[LuisDantas]

The main person who springs to mind is Stephen Batchelor. Look, I'm sure he is a nice guy and I have no personal animosity towards him, I just deeply disagree with his approach.

Fine, then do. It is not like he has ever been recognized as a Priest by anyone, anyway.

I just don't see where the problem is. Do you see him as disrespectful or unfaithful to Buddhism in some way?

It seems to me that Dharma is supposed to be misunderstood and reevaluated as a matter of course. It is not like people agree about what it says all the time anyway.

My short definition would be that materialism is the view that matter is the only ultimately real thing and serves as the First Cause for mind and all that is experienced. In materialism there is no rebirth because the mind is only seen as a specific property of a specific combination of matter and with the breaking up of that material form the mind it manufactures ceases without remainder.

I don't think the Batchelors or Susan Blackmore are proposing anything quite that nihilistic. Even if they were, that would hardly be remarkable among the far more serious misdirected statements that we see from, say, some Hindus or from Soka Gakkai.

Disagreement should be treated with research, debate and honest search for the truth. Not with irrational rejection and fear of questioning.

What I mean is that it may be easier to simply say you are not a Buddhist but that you like a lot of what the Buddha teaches rather than saying you are a Buddhist and then having to explain to an interested person why you reject major portions of what the various Buddhist traditions have held to be true.

Easier, no doubt, at least in the short term and in the current atmosphere.

But is it more faithful to the Dharma or to truth?

Is it more honest from a religious perspective?

The same thing applies to those who would call themselves Buddhist while affirming belief in an eternal Self or First Cause. (Though I will admit that in this case the "eternalist" is in an even more difficult position than the outright "nihilist". Both views though are problematic and not supported in what is recorded as the Buddha's teaching.)

How did you conclude that Blackmore or the Batchelors are nihilistic? I don't think they are, or at least it is not particularly obvious if they happen to be.

 

[Poeticus]

Disagreement should be treated with research, debate and honest search for the truth. Not with irrational rejection and fear of questioning.

I'd hardly characterize Buddhists (like Von) or those familiar with its early compositions (like Jeremy) detailing "Western Buddhism" as materialistic as "irrational rejection" inherently marked by a "fear of questioning". "Western Buddhism" usually comes across as Carvaka 2.0---and obviously there is nothing wrong with Carvaka; 'tis basically a factual reality that Indian philosophies were involved in a pioneering sense agnostically and atheistically when non-Dharmic, non-Eastern philosophies were infantile in their often narrow perspectives. And this is the very Carvaka that early Buddhists of the Subcontinent heavily debated, hotly contested, and with whom they engaged in vigorous dialectical and hermeneutical debates.

The issue at hand is rather the [religious] outward-rigorism displayed by many of the "Western Buddhist" camp in their condemnation of [Eastern] Buddhists who have been Buddhist both socio-culturally and religiously as well as philosophically for countless centuries unlike the recent misappropriationists who seem to parade a pseudo-strain passing it off as authentic and traditional. In fact, I cringe every time I see a member or two of the Buddhist DIR engaging in fervent and virulent sutta-citing, which can psychoanalytically and socio-culturally be substantiated as a carry-over from one's Abrahamic upbringing or socio-cultural environment(s).

The responsibility, then, would not be to dissect posts such as these and those by Von into separate sentences in order to address each aspect of those paragraphs as if they were separate identities only to make this conversation go into dull and circular argumentation, but to acknowledge the simple and quite factual reality that Dharmic philosophies must be re-conceptualized and re-approached from epistemic and ontological realities that best suit them.

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe I have not been exposed to the problem? You all speak as if I was supposed to have met it, but it seems that I did not.

On the contrary, actually. I have had trouble with Dharma teachers attempting to make use of Quantum Physics in supposedly Dharmic speeches, and attempting to meld some animism into the teachings.

That does worry me. While your worries... I still fail to understand them, sorry to say.

 

[crossfire]

Maybe I have not been exposed to the problem? You all speak as if I was supposed to have met it, but it seems that I did not.

On the contrary, actually. I have had trouble with Dharma teachers attempting to make use of Quantum Physics in supposedly Dharmic speeches, and attempting to meld some animism into the teachings.

That does worry me. While your worries... I still fail to understand them, sorry to say.

I would have to agree with you regarding the attempt to incorporate quantum physics in supposedly Dhamma talks. I'll even make some people cringe by pointing to the sutta entitled "Unconjecturable" regarding this--and what such speculation does to ones mind.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

You realize I can say much the same thing.

It was you used such terms as recognise and avoided talking about what is the case.

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 didn't mean to imply Buddhism did teach such. But the materialist denial of self is entirely negative, a cause for despair and not celebration as in traditional Buddhism.

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.

I'm confused. She is a radical materialist. She explicitly denies anything exists but the material or physical. How does she not deny the transcendent?

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

What I said leads me to: the positions put forward on each side. I'm confused. You aren't really addressing the issues.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I don't think the Batchelors or Susan Blackmore are proposing anything quite that nihilistic. Even if they were, that would hardly be remarkable among the far more serious misdirected statements that we see from, say, some Hindus or from Soka Gakkai.

As Carl Jung and others have said, Buddhism stripped of its religious elements is a cause for despair. This is what Blackmore and the like produce: a Buddhism shorn of all transcendence and meaning and beauty. How Hindus trying to turn Buddhism into Avaita are worse than that is hard to see. You are certainly not explaining it.

Disagreement should be treated with research, debate and honest search for the truth. Not with irrational rejection and fear of questioning.

Who is rejecting anything irrationally? This would imply that all rejection is irrational, without showing it. I'm not even sure what is meant by fear of questioning.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Maybe I have not been exposed to the problem? You all speak as if I was supposed to have met it, but it seems that I did not.

On the contrary, actually. I have had trouble with Dharma teachers attempting to make use of Quantum Physics in supposedly Dharmic speeches, and attempting to meld some animism into the teachings.

That does worry me. While your worries... I still fail to understand them, sorry to say.

Whilst, again, I completely fail to see how this compares to materialistic, Western Buddhism as a problem, I agree that those who carelessly combine today's scientific concepts with religion are foolish.

 

[Straw Dog]

The Buddha is dead. I killed him while walking to this very thread. However, he did mention before I took his life, that he didn't really mind at all.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

(Though I will admit that in this case the "eternalist" is in an even more difficult position than the outright "nihilist".)

Whilst I can see where you are coming from, I'm not sure I agree. Someone like Blackmore would presumably be separated from the Buddha's perspective from the outset. What can enlightenment or awakening mean to the reductionist or eliminative materialist? What can the Buddha's spiritual effort and journey mean to them? There could surely be more profitable intercourse between any traditional religious position on earth and Buddhism than between it and the likes of Blackmore. Buddhism, for example, has interacted very positively with Taoism and Confucianism.

 

[Straw Dog]

For the record, I'm not really a Buddhist in good faith, but I do agree that there is much more to awakening than a materialistic-reductionist account.