Would Buddha be appalled at the state of Buddhism today?

[crossfire]

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.

Well, let's looks at the Kalama Sutta (and make people cringe)

"Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:

"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.

"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.

"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.

"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.

"One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now."​

Conclusion: anyone can benefit from Buddha's teachings.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Perhaps, although that is much like saying that anyone can benefit from Christ's moral teaching. That is true, but such morality is but the beginning or prerequisite of the spiritual journey, not its end.

Besides, as I said, I cannot see how the doctrines of Blackmore can lead to anything but despair, and therefore I doubt they will lead many to seriously pursue even the teachings you are referring to.

 

[crossfire]

Perhaps, although that is much like saying that anyone can benefit from Christ's moral teaching. That is true, but such morality is but the beginning or prerequisite of the spiritual journey, not its end.

Besides, as I said, I cannot see how the doctrines of Blackmore can lead to anything but despair, and therefore I doubt they will lead many to seriously pursue even the teachings you are referring to.

The teachings of the Kalama Sutta to reject doctrines/teachings that propagate greed, hatred, and/or delusion, and accept doctrines that propagate a lack of greed, hatred, or delusion? Can you cite anything from Blackmore's teachings that propagate greed, hatred or delusion? (Which is the criteria for rejection communicated within the Kalama sutta.)

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

The teachings of the Kalama Sutta to reject doctrines/teachings that propagate greed, hatred, and/or delusion, and accept doctrines that propagate a lack of greed, hatred, or delusion? Can you cite anything from Blackmore's teachings that propagate greed, hatred or delusion? (Which is the criteria for rejection communicated within the Kalama sutta.)

Well, her nihilistic materialism would presumably propagate delusion.

But the point is what does this lead to? Are you saying that the Buddhist doctrine is simply to reject greed and hatred? You appear to imply that Buddhism can be reformulated as some sort of humanitarian good will.

Of course, one can interpret these injunctions in their deepest spiritual sense, but then one is right back to the problem that the likes of Blackmore would undermine this spiritual discipline and journey.

 

[crossfire]

Well, her nihilistic materialism would presumably propagate delusion.

But the point is what does this lead to? Are you saying that the Buddhist doctrine is simply to reject greed and hatred? You appear to imply that Buddhism can be reformulated as some sort of humanitarian good will.

Of course, one can interpret these injunctions in their deepest spiritual sense, but then one is right back to the problem that the likes of Blackmore would undermine this spiritual discipline and journey.

I love irony. Here's the Kalama Sutta:
Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas

The opening question of the Kalama Sutta:

"As they sat there, the Kalamas of Kesaputta said to the Blessed One, "Lord, there are some brahmans & contemplatives who come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. And then other brahmans & contemplatives come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt: Which of these venerable brahmans & contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?"​

Buddha then goes on to show why doctrines preaching greed, hatred, or delusion lead to long term harm, and are to be rejected on those grounds.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I love irony. Here's the Kalama Sutta:
Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas

The opening question of the Kalama Sutta:

"As they sat there, the Kalamas of Kesaputta said to the Blessed One, "Lord, there are some brahmans & contemplatives who come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. And then other brahmans & contemplatives come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt: Which of these venerable brahmans & contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?"​

Buddha then goes on to show why doctrines preaching greed, hatred, or delusion lead to long term harm, and are to be rejected on those grounds.

Well, firstly, all religious traditions engage in polemics with competing traditions. I would always advise taking these with a grain of salt. They have their place, but sometimes it is good to look past them, though that isn't the point right now.

Secondly, you are not getting to the heart of the matter: the status of materialistic, Western Buddhism. Even if Buddhism should have simply contempt for Hinduism and all other religious traditions, why it should respect the likes of Blackmore more is hard to see.

As I said, if one interprets greed, hatred, or delusion in a more limited way, then one can hardly take such moralism as but being the beginning of the Buddhist journey. If one interprets them in the deepest spiritual sense, then you get right back to the fact that materialist, Western Buddhism undermines the Buddhist spiritual effort and journey.

 

[crossfire]

Well, firstly, all religious traditions engage in polemics with competing traditions. I would always advise taking these with a grain of salt. They have their place, but sometimes it is good to look past them.

Secondly, you are not getting to the heart of the matter: the status of materialistic, Western Buddhism. Even if Buddhism should have unrelenting contempt for Hinduism and all other religious traditions, why it should respect the likes of Blackmore more is hard to see.

As I said, if one interprets greed, hatred, or delusion in a more limited way, then one can hardly take such moralism as but being the beginning of the Buddhist journey. If one interprets them in the deepest spiritual sense, then you get right back to the fact that materialist, Western Buddhism undermines the Buddhist spiritual effort and journey.

Please read the Kalama Sutta. You will see that it cuts right to the heart of the matter.

 

[von bek]

I would like to share a link to a short essay by Bhikkhu Bodhi on the Kalama Sutta.

A Look at the Kalama Sutta

Here are the first two paragraphs:

In this issue of the newsletter we have combined the feature essay with the "Sutta Study" column as we take a fresh look at an often quoted discourse of the Buddha, the Kalama Sutta. The discourse — found in translation in Wheel No. 8 — has been described as "the Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry," and though the discourse certainly does counter the decrees of dogmatism and blind faith with a vigorous call for free investigation, it is problematic whether the sutta can support all the positions that have been ascribed to it. On the basis of a single passage, quoted out of context, the Buddha has been made out to be a pragmatic empiricist who dismisses all doctrine and faith, and whose Dhamma is simply a freethinker's kit to truth which invites each one to accept and reject whatever he likes.

But does the Kalama Sutta really justify such views? Or do we meet in these claims just another set of variations on that egregious old tendency to interpret the Dhamma according to whatever notions are congenial to oneself — or to those to whom one is preaching? Let us take as careful a look at the Kalama Sutta as the limited space allotted to this essay will allow, remembering that in order to understand the Buddha's utterances correctly it is essential to take account of his own intentions in making them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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..

Buddha achieved 'nibbana' by his own analysis, he did not need manuscripts. He did not believe in Gods and prophecies or in a sons/messengers of God. He had no need for a messiah. Of course, Buddha was righteous and wanted others also to be as such for their own benefit and for the benefit of others. Buddha was a product of a culture which was much older than 1500 BC. Now, please, get off from your Jewish, Christian, Muslim horse.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram vonbek ji

I would like to share a link to a short essay by Bhikkhu Bodhi on the Kalama Sutta.

A Look at the Kalama Sutta

Here are the first two paragraphs:

thank you for this poingient quote ,....

unfortunatly there can be a tendancy to cherry pick portions of suttas and to over quote inorder to support ones argument , ....after all in truth are these suttas not there for our guidance so that we may make personal reflections and enquirie ?
they chould not be used as a divice with which to chalenge the thought of others , such behavior has conotations of the dogmatism that the sutta recomends we be warry of , ....

''and though the discourse certainly does counter the decrees of dogmatism and blind faith with a vigorous call for free investigation, it is problematic whether the sutta can support all the positions that have been ascribed to it. ''

and the last paragraph I find to beequaly beautifull advice ...

Faith in the Buddha's teaching is never regarded as an end in itself nor as a sufficient guarantee of liberation, but only as the starting point for an evolving process of inner transformation that comes to fulfillment in personal insight. But in order for this insight to exercise a truly liberative function, it must unfold in the context of an accurate grasp of the essential truths concerning our situation in the world and the domain where deliverance is to be sought. These truths have been imparted to us by the Buddha out of his own profound comprehension of the human condition. To accept them in trust after careful consideration is to set foot on a journey which transforms faith into wisdom, confidence into certainty, and culminates in liberation from suffering.

we should allso be cautious of holding fixed veiws as in so many arguments here it is the fixed veiw that inhibits one from learning from what the other has to say , ....it is for this reason that we should not judge others or assert what is or is not Buddhism a true Buddhist is one who lives peacefully in acceptance of others and their paths deriving joy where ever one sees wisdom and compassion in practice .

we must remember that fixed veiw is an attatchment .


http://uk.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/

 

[LuisDantas]

Perhaps, although that is much like saying that anyone can benefit from Christ's moral teaching. That is true, but such morality is but the beginning or prerequisite of the spiritual journey, not its end.

Besides, as I said, I cannot see how the doctrines of Blackmore can lead to anything but despair, and therefore I doubt they will lead many to seriously pursue even the teachings you are referring to.

You make Blackmore look like something she quite simply is nothing like.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

I am not aware of an issue. Not one with the teachings of Susan Blackmore or of the Batchelors, anyway. No one presented me any, and it is certainly not apparent with what they actually say and write.

 

[Yeshe Dondrub]

He wouldn't be He himself formulated how he taught aspects of the dharma. He did explain riual, including in Hinduism, can obstruct the mind.

In the west you need to be aware there are different aspects, even in Tibetan Buddhism, where Tibetan culture has been removed from the core teachings. While there are reflective aspects in Vajrayana ,, we also understand the true aspects of eat when it comes to working with mind and ego. Literal is very different then releasing aspects, the more you study, and proceed to the mahamudra, the sooner those concepts are dissolved completely.

Unless you study and spend years meditating, the purpose and approach won't be seen at face value. When we trick ego to stop grasping in a system shock, much like the Buddha did, then we realize.

Did Buddha battle Mara as a true being? OR was mara, like other reflective aspects, simply an aspect of mind?

While we are called Buddhists, following Buddhism, we are simply following dharma with various approaches to deal with the core aspects he has taught.

 

[Dorothy Dandridge]

I don't see why he would?

The Buddha would understand that nothing is perfect, most especially humanity. I think he would merely explain and critique in a helpful manner. It isn't like Buddha was Jesus, and the Buddha's teachings do not end with the Buddha. So I see no reason for any cause of offense?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Was there not evil, dissatisfaction in Buddha's time? Buddha analyzed that and gave the prescription.

 

[sampuna]

The Buddha wouldn't be appalled. He wasn't here to dominate mankind at the first place. He was here just to show the path to all beings, for the sake of their happiness.
All beings have different inclinations, some towards homeless life, some still clinging on to householder's life.

Thus, to each being he met, he'd teach a dharma suitable for its maximum spiritual development. Spirit worshipers included

This opening stanza to Ratana Sutta tells us the Buddha was indeed all inclusive


Tasmā hi bhūtā nisāmetha sabbe, mettaṁ karotha mānusiyā pajāya,
Therefore, all of you beings, be attentive, be friendly towards this generation of men,

divā ca ratto ca haranti ye baliṁ, tasmā hi ne rakkhatha appamattā.
they who bring offerings by day and by night, therefore, being heedful, you must protect them.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Was there not evil, dissatisfaction in Buddha's time? Buddha analyzed that and gave the prescription.

It's certainly a timeless teaching.

 

[Vishvavajra]

No doubt there are people who misrepresent Buddhadharma, and they can do great harm, but on the whole the surviving Buddhist lineages are still faithfully practicing the same Dharma that was seeded some 2500 years ago. The beauty of Buddhadharma is that it is capable of adapting to different cultures and circumstances while still remaining true to the heart of the teachings that lead to Buddhahood. The fact is that all of Buddhadharma is simply the tools that one uses to achieve the goal, not the goal itself, so as long as it is efficacious in doing what it's supposed to do, there's no problem if it looks different from one time to another. Very few if any religions are nearly that flexible.

One thing that's important to understand is that this attitude, that Buddhism has grown decadent and fallen from the "pure" philosophy of its founder, is based on a fundamental distortion propagated by colonial European writers, who were very interested in turning Buddhism into something that they could be conveniently slotted into their own preconceived notions, rather than appreciating it for what it actually is on its own terms. Western practitioners who continue to further those nasty stereotypes are making the same error: they think they understand the Dharma better than ordained monks do, despite the fact that they are dragging lots of baggage from their Christian culture along with them. For example, they approach myths and doctrines from a very literalist view and then reject them as not being literally true, without ever trying to understand what is actually being communicated.

In short, if a person's view of Shakyamuni Buddha looks very much like a modern European secular materialist philosopher, then you can bet there's some projecting going on.

And that's not even getting into the fact that we have no direct knowledge about Buddhism's founder. He's a mythic figure that we know only through the teachings that have been handed down, plus some mythic biographies that were composed several centuries later. We can only guess about his personal attitudes and predilections. And that's fine, since Buddhadharma isn't really about him; it's about the teachings, which either work or they don't. Even if there were never such a person, it should make no difference, as long as the teachings are effective at liberating people as promised.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No doubt there are people who misrepresent Buddhadharma, and they can do great harm, but on the whole the surviving Buddhist lineages are still faithfully practicing the same Dharma that was seeded some 2500 years ago. The beauty of Buddhadharma is that it is capable of adapting to different cultures and circumstances while still remaining true to the heart of the teachings that lead to Buddhahood. The fact is that all of Buddhadharma is simply the tools that one uses to achieve the goal, not the goal itself, so as long as it is efficacious in doing what it's supposed to do, there's no problem if it looks different from one time to another. Very few if any religions are nearly that flexible.

I broadly agree, and Buddhadarma has found many cultural expressions in different times and places. But do you think there is some "essence" that can be separated out from these various cultural expressions, and if so, what do you think it is? Even the goal is expressed differently, in some schools it's simply Nibbana / Nirvana, in others it's liberation from the cycle of birth and death, or rebirth in the Pureland, or whatever.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I broadly agree, and Buddhadarma has found many cultural expressions in different times and places. But do you think there is some "essence" that can be separated out from these various cultural expressions, and if so, what do you think it is? Even the goal is expressed differently, in some schools it's simply Nibbana / Nirvana, in others it's liberation from the cycle of birth and death, or rebirth in the Pureland, or whatever.

Realizing Nirvana and liberation from birth and death are two ways of saying the same thing. Birth in the Pure Land is simply a prelude to the same thing—an immediate goal rather than the ultimate one. Pure Land Buddhism is a Mahayana practice after all, so the point is still attaining full Buddhahood in order to save all beings. It's just a particular method of accomplishing that.

All authentic Buddhadharma is aiming at the goal of achieving the same thing that Shakyamuni Buddha did. It's an innate capacity that everyone has. The trick is to figure out which methods are most effective, and that can vary from person to person. There are teachings that are common to all authentic Buddhist lineages (e.g. dependent origination), but even those are a means to an end. They work because they appear to accord with the nature of reality (or at least the human experience of it), but they too are conceptual models that point people towards liberation, not an objective reality that people can cling to.