"Behold, O monks, this is my last advice to you. All component things in the world are changeable. They are not lasting. Work hard to gain your own salvation."
Every time Buddhism moved to a new country, it picked up all the cultural elements of that place. From India to Western USA and beyond. The points that attract people to Buddhism change with the desires of the society; the message stays the same.
I'm with you most of the way, but I want to point out that there are differences in "the message" in different schools. Theravada - the goal is to NOT be reborn at all. Mahayana - the goal is to be reborn until all sentient beings are free from rebirth. Pure Land - the goal is to be reborn, but in a very specific place.
I practice Theravada and your summation is correct. Westerners altered the teachings to suit Science and Western Capitalist mores. The entire point of Buddhism is for one thing - to let go! Its conventionally a religion however the practice itself is not religious or a philosophy or anything like Stoicism. The Buddha taught pointers, to investigate, not simply recall the Dhamma and repeat it, it must be felt and experiences otherwise we can't see reality which is right here right now but due to conditioning we can't see it. Thank you.
This video is quite interesting to watch for me Brad, since I discovered both the concept of Buddhist Modernism and your work through the same blogger: David Chapman of Vividness, who wrote the "Why Brad Warner Matters" article you linked to on your own blog a while ago. I remember you mentioning that Chapman picked very different quotes to represent what he felt your books were about than those you would have chosen, and it was clear that he had been schooled in a different branch of Buddhism than you have. (to be honest Chapman's own ideas often look exceptionally convoluted for no good reason to my perspective, but I am certain they make perfect sense to him) At any rate many of the points you make in this video I recognise from my conversations with an Iranian Zoroastrian in my real life friend circle. He frequently points out that academic scholars of comparative religion usually have a worse understanding of specific religions than people who practice those religions on a daily basis have, and that people from traditionally Christian cultures tend to project uniquely Christian philosophical premises unto religions that have originated in very different contexts when interpreting them which results in quite a few popular misunderstandings that take a lot of work to clear up.
Brad actually did a multi-part online debate with Stephen Batchelor a while back, probably because Brad breaks with the Western Buddhist mainstream in many ways where Stephen does not
Uchiyama Roshi has said “Zazen is the most venerable and only true teacher”. As an academic, I definitely have an intellectual understanding of things, but without practice being paramount that is all useless. Plus, practice and intellect/theory/philosophy inform each other!
Buddhist modernism goes back even further. It has roots in Sri Lanka and Burma, as a response by Buddhists to British Christian missionaries. Western fixation on authenticity would be better described as Buddhist postmodernism.
What’s wrong with Modern Buddhism? Isn’t Buddhism an evolving tradition? After all the Buddha told his followers to do what works and not follow traditions blindly.
To me seemed like the Vipassana organization plays this pristine card. "Our method comes from the Buddha himself" (it's not some later stuff such as zen)
“Each time the dharma moved into a different civilization or historical period, it faced a twofold challenge: to maintain its integrity as an internally coherent tradition, and to express its vision in a way that responded to the needs of the new situation.” Stephen Batchelor
“For me, Buddhism is like a living organism. If it is to flourish outside self-enclosed ghettos of believers, it will have to meet the challenge of understanding, interacting with, and adapting to an environment that is strikingly different from those in which it has evolved.” Stephen gives good quote.
As you said : nobody is right. There is a profound misunderstanding of Buddhism in terms of Gautama's teachings. Buddhism is not a philosophy and does not offer any ontological truths. When Gautama was asked by an atheist if there is a God, his answer was "Yes." When the same question was asked by a theist, his answer was "No." Gautama explained : he said this to remove fixed attachments in the minds of both individuals. With attachments, the truth, which cannot be conceptualized, cannot be known. Later, Nagarjuna, the famous Buddhist philosopher (also an enlightened teacher and Chan/Zen patriarch), introduced the concept of "Emptiness of emptiness." While his contemporary Buddhists believed in a "substance" as the matrix of everything, unborn and never dying, Nagarjuna rejected this view and taught that nothing exists, understanding Sunyata as "All things are empty of intrinsic existence and nature." Later, Vasubandhu, another enlightened teacher (considered a Zen/Chan patriarch in this same lineage), famous for his philosophy and debating skills, rejected Nagarjuna's philosophy, which had already become the most popular view among Buddhists. Vasubandhu taught that there is one truly existing and only really existing entity, which he called "Mind," creating the "Mind-only school of Buddhism: Yogacara." Why did these two enlightened teachers, from the same lineage, contradict themselves, write extensive philosophy to debunk opposing views, and participate in numerous debates to prove their points? They explained that they were removing attachments( fixed views of other followers around them), and that is what Buddhism is about. In the Hindu tradition, from which Buddhism originated, it is referred to as "Psychological Yoga: Raja Yoga," and Gautama is considered its greatest master with his middle way. What Jesus taught could be classified as the Yoga of Devotion (Love). In India, it is believed that Jesus was an exceptional teacher of this path. Both paths work differently, but their goal is the same. In summary, the philosophical differences, beliefs among Buddhists, and classifications of Buddhism as modern or not are completely irrelevant to what Buddhism truly is. Through the Upaya method of teachings, enlightened teachers attempt to remove our attachments and motivate us. Concepts like hell, heaven, and gods are not literally true; they are metaphors and tools. Same negations of them. Of course, there are some realities in them, but they are difficult to grasp for an ordinary mind. The problem is when mind is fixed/ attached to some conceptual idea/ philosophy . that mind mind cannot follow the path . It is stoped from reaching something which beyond human's concepts and dualism. That something called Truth is exactly the eseence of buddhist teachings just like the essence of other classical religions . You can call it "God" if you wish because it is ultimately exactly this same. ( not in the modern often common understanding of God : Superhuman, Demiurge, and so on. but the classical one : Mind like ultimate reality which isn't really reality or Mind because is beyond any concepts and so on : Via negativa ) That is the common denominator of real religions: Truth can be experienced not explained.
Pragmatically speaking, if thinking of these things as demons or hells, and treating them as such, gets the results you want, then there's nothing to say you shouldn't.
Thanks, Brad! I've been discussing this matter of the interpretation of authenticity, and I've thought about it pretty much the same way you presented it here. Heavens, hells, angels, and demons roam all world religions, and within all religions, some people interpret them literally or symbolically. A literal interpretation easily leads to fundamentalism, which makes religion very restrictive and very judgmental. It also leads to a deepening conflict between religion and reality. In my opinion, Buddhism is reborn in every meditation practice, from the basis that supposedly arose from the realization of a supposed person in India 2500 years ago. Meditation itself is the gateway to original Buddhism.
As has been stated elsewhere in the comments already, Evan Thompson’s book “Why I am Not a Buddhist” is quite pivotal and provides a very good intellectual argument against Buddhist modernism. I also feel modernism’s influence is pernicious. Some very good and fairly recent interviews on RUclips with Dr. Thompson-Steve over at Guru Viking has done two now, and they’re highly worth watching. Brad, I think you would find Thompson insightful and very reasonable and worth listening to or reading. (I should mention, he is NOT trying to convince people not to be Buddhist, that’s not his angle at all. He didn’t intend his book to be like Bertrand Russell’s book about Christianity with a similar name, Thompson states this.)
Maybe it would be interesting to make a video, what did not change during this buddhist adaption process. Are there any core teachings, mind attitudes, practices which are unchanged?
The idea that Buddhism was pure and pristine in the Buddha's lifetime and then degenerated is in itself a modernist idea, associated with Protestantism. I think the book (which is very interesting) points this out.😉
I do worry that the subtleties of what the Buddha was saying may have gotten lost due to people trying to pretty up the dogma. That said, it's hard to believe in literal rebirth and I wouldn't have made it living the harsh conditions of a monk during the Buddha's time.
I feel like the fun aspect has been sucked out in zen. Like in gnosticism, there was a sacred chamber in which the unification of male and female was celebrated...which became taboo in later christianism.
Didn't the OG Buddha say on his death bed that he didn't even expect Buddhism to survive very long? Or that he expected it to change? I can't remember where I heard that... I think Richard Greer said something to that effect on that 3.5hr long PBS special 🙃
there’s nothing in this world more paranormal, supernatural and anti-materialist than consciousness itself :) demons and other realms are a footnote to Mind.
Thanks for the Pink Panther intro. Fun. Always loved Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau. What that commenter is doing, aside from a little gaslighting, is what many people have done over the centuries. My buddhism is better than your buddhism ‘cuz it’s closest to what Buddha taught. Or, they slide into a fundamentalist stance, beat their chests, and say, “My buddhism is the one true buddhism.” This all falls into a sort of third mode of what religious scholars term repristinization: the false efforts of trying to return to the one true pure form. As you pointed out, ain’t possible. People can have ole timey buddhism but they can’t have the original, only Buddha knows the original. Go Ziggy! Time for coffee
Oh good gravy! Read Brad's book ''Hardcore Zen'', learn to sit Zazen. The rest is Fluffernutter! 🤣(any and all references to marshmellow sandwich fillers is purely coincidental!)😉
Evan Thompson’s book “why I am not a buddhist” provides a philosophical argument against buddhist modernism, particularly the idea that buddhism is a “science of the mind”. It’s an interesting read - Thompson is quite pro-buddhism.
To be honest I mainly watch videos on zen for entertainment. I vibe with theravada and I get the feeling that some fundamental teachings seem to have been thrown out the window in the zen lineage. Wikipedia has a surprisingly good overview in the theravada article in the subsection Doctrine/Core Teachings. I wonder if you were aware of these teachings and if they were beneficial to your meditation practice? Personally I especially miss metta and the jhanas in zen, which have been profoundly beneficial to me.
Highly recommend Evan Thompson’s work on Buddhist modernism. Theravada can fall into the modernist trap quite badly. So can Zen, but Theravada almost always bills itself as pristine ancient teaching, with no supernaturalism, or unprovable truth claims (the reality: it is not, there is, and it certainly makes such claims). Zen is interesting in that it kind of had that vein of thought even before the modern era, but can also (and certainly often does) fall into a similar intellectual trap as Theravada in modern times.
@@baizhanghuaihai2298 I find the Thai Forest Tradition a really good school of Theravada Buddhism that has rooted quite strongly in the West. I mostly follow a group of Canadian monks *Ajahn Sona, Ajahn Sudanto, Ajahn Punnadhammo|* and also Zen teachers I like Brad Warner, Muho and a few obscurer ones. Also I cannot forget mentioning Ajahn Sumedho and Ajahn Jayasaro. Inevitably I find that this was something I found limiting, the holiness of the Pali canon and its value as the sole authentic doctrine. Nevertheless, the Pali Canon does hold great texts to deepen once practice and also educate himself or herself in certain virtues and values. Just like the entire discipline that lies behind just sitting. I think they are complementary tastes that become a bit irreconciable when you focus on their specific metaphysics. Dualistic vs Non Dualistic, Sunyata, Nirvana. This is another debate! The practice though, I see a lot of references to Theravada in Zen. And to Zen in Theravada too. The latter has not avoided the contact, in fact, I remember to my surprise, finding Zen books in Japanese at a Theravada monastery which, by the way, was the first one of its kind to be constructed in Europe *outskirts of Berlin, Fronau, Germany. Thank you for the recommendation. I will try and get it Evan Thompson’s book. Saludos!
Its entirely possible to spend your whole sitting still in lotus posture and NEVER enter Samadhi. Samadhi is like the sun at the center of a solar system...everything else in Buddhism is held in place by its gravitational pull. So you can be a Buddhist academic with years of study AND you can sit on a cushion for a lifetime......and still never get it.
Some peoples’ Buddhism is praising Buddha like he’s God. Other people chant and don’t sit. Lots of different flavors. My sangha just sits a lot with a little chanting, some one-on-one meetings with my teacher and stuff like that. I have no problem with what anyone does, and it can be called Buddhism.
Yes Buddhism is very flexible. I noticed similarities between (for example) people who worshiped a statue of Mary in South America and people in Asia who worshiped a statue of the Buddha. The background of these two religions are obviously very different, but the way of worship seemed similar . And often it's because their lives were also similar These peoples had hard lives ( especially in the past ) .They did backbraking work for 10 hours a day, had children to raise, etc, etc .They didn't have the time or education to practice , meditate & study . They just needed a higher power to pray to in bad times, give hope, and inspire.
"The originators of Buddhism didn't intend to make a static religion which could never be changed". As the Buddha taught, all things are impermanent, all phenomena are empty. Emptiness, rather than conjuring images of a lack of something, is the engine of change. All things change, including Buddhism. This is simply the nature of relative reality. When you uncover your true nature, you realise that you didn't need a teacher or Buddhism (I haven't uncovered my true nature yet). Buddha explained the four noble truths. How you liberate yourself depends on your karmic baggage. If for no other reason, this is why the methods (and there are many in Buddhism) for liberation should be flexible. The core 'truths' are not subject to alteration, but the means of revealing these core truths are. Just my 2 cents worth and how I've come to understand my own practice.
"Behold, O monks, this is my last advice to you. All component things in the world are changeable. They are not lasting. Work hard to gain your own salvation."
Love how Brad actually buys books I’ve never heard of and “shows them to the camera”--nice touch
Every time Buddhism moved to a new country, it picked up all the cultural elements of that place. From India to Western USA and beyond. The points that attract people to Buddhism change with the desires of the society; the message stays the same.
I'm with you most of the way, but I want to point out that there are differences in "the message" in different schools. Theravada - the goal is to NOT be reborn at all. Mahayana - the goal is to be reborn until all sentient beings are free from rebirth. Pure Land - the goal is to be reborn, but in a very specific place.
I practice Theravada and your summation is correct. Westerners altered the teachings to suit Science and Western Capitalist mores. The entire point of Buddhism is for one thing - to let go! Its conventionally a religion however the practice itself is not religious or a philosophy or anything like Stoicism. The Buddha taught pointers, to investigate, not simply recall the Dhamma and repeat it, it must be felt and experiences otherwise we can't see reality which is right here right now but due to conditioning we can't see it. Thank you.
This reminds me of Ajahn Brahm
This video is quite interesting to watch for me Brad, since I discovered both the concept of Buddhist Modernism and your work through the same blogger: David Chapman of Vividness, who wrote the "Why Brad Warner Matters" article you linked to on your own blog a while ago. I remember you mentioning that Chapman picked very different quotes to represent what he felt your books were about than those you would have chosen, and it was clear that he had been schooled in a different branch of Buddhism than you have. (to be honest Chapman's own ideas often look exceptionally convoluted for no good reason to my perspective, but I am certain they make perfect sense to him)
At any rate many of the points you make in this video I recognise from my conversations with an Iranian Zoroastrian in my real life friend circle. He frequently points out that academic scholars of comparative religion usually have a worse understanding of specific religions than people who practice those religions on a daily basis have, and that people from traditionally Christian cultures tend to project uniquely Christian philosophical premises unto religions that have originated in very different contexts when interpreting them which results in quite a few popular misunderstandings that take a lot of work to clear up.
Gracias tío! :) And woof!
Stephen Batchelor’s books will give you a good perspective on “modern buddhism”. Worth reading if only to know what it means.
Brad actually did a multi-part online debate with Stephen Batchelor a while back, probably because Brad breaks with the Western Buddhist mainstream in many ways where Stephen does not
@@Tsotha Is that on RUclips?
yes it's on this very channel@@aguiarmr
@@aguiarmr ruclips.net/video/9feU_HE4Wo0/видео.html
Uchiyama Roshi has said “Zazen is the most venerable and only true teacher”. As an academic, I definitely have an intellectual understanding of things, but without practice being paramount that is all useless. Plus, practice and intellect/theory/philosophy inform each other!
Buddhist modernism goes back even further. It has roots in Sri Lanka and Burma, as a response by Buddhists to British Christian missionaries. Western fixation on authenticity would be better described as Buddhist postmodernism.
perfect!
What’s wrong with Modern Buddhism? Isn’t Buddhism an evolving tradition? After all the Buddha told his followers to do what works and not follow traditions blindly.
To me seemed like the Vipassana organization plays this pristine card. "Our method comes from the Buddha himself" (it's not some later stuff such as zen)
“Each time the dharma moved into a different civilization or historical period, it faced a twofold challenge: to maintain its integrity as an internally coherent tradition, and to express its vision in a way that responded to the needs of the new situation.” Stephen Batchelor
This! ^^
“For me, Buddhism is like a living organism. If it is to flourish outside self-enclosed ghettos of believers, it will have to meet the challenge of understanding, interacting with, and adapting to an environment that is strikingly different from those in which it has evolved.” Stephen gives good quote.
@@4imagesmore I nourish the leap of faith, that the ability to return into peaceful loving kindness is universal in this world.
Dang it this is an idea I just posted and thought I had summed it up in an original way lol. Of course someone said it better!
🎵 guilty by associationnn!!! I wanna run away! Never say goodbye 🎵
As you said : nobody is right. There is a profound misunderstanding of Buddhism in terms of Gautama's teachings. Buddhism is not a philosophy and does not offer any ontological truths. When Gautama was asked by an atheist if there is a God, his answer was "Yes." When the same question was asked by a theist, his answer was "No." Gautama explained : he said this to remove fixed attachments in the minds of both individuals. With attachments, the truth, which cannot be conceptualized, cannot be known. Later, Nagarjuna, the famous Buddhist philosopher (also an enlightened teacher and Chan/Zen patriarch), introduced the concept of "Emptiness of emptiness." While his contemporary Buddhists believed in a "substance" as the matrix of everything, unborn and never dying, Nagarjuna rejected this view and taught that nothing exists, understanding Sunyata as "All things are empty of intrinsic existence and nature." Later, Vasubandhu, another enlightened teacher (considered a Zen/Chan patriarch in this same lineage), famous for his philosophy and debating skills, rejected Nagarjuna's philosophy, which had already become the most popular view among Buddhists. Vasubandhu taught that there is one truly existing and only really existing entity, which he called "Mind," creating the "Mind-only school of Buddhism: Yogacara." Why did these two enlightened teachers, from the same lineage, contradict themselves, write extensive philosophy to debunk opposing views, and participate in numerous debates to prove their points? They explained that they were removing attachments( fixed views of other followers around them), and that is what Buddhism is about. In the Hindu tradition, from which Buddhism originated, it is referred to as "Psychological Yoga: Raja Yoga," and Gautama is considered its greatest master with his middle way. What Jesus taught could be classified as the Yoga of Devotion (Love). In India, it is believed that Jesus was an exceptional teacher of this path. Both paths work differently, but their goal is the same. In summary, the philosophical differences, beliefs among Buddhists, and classifications of Buddhism as modern or not are completely irrelevant to what Buddhism truly is. Through the Upaya method of teachings, enlightened teachers attempt to remove our attachments and motivate us. Concepts like hell, heaven, and gods are not literally true; they are metaphors and tools. Same negations of them. Of course, there are some realities in them, but they are difficult to grasp for an ordinary mind. The problem is when mind is fixed/ attached to some conceptual idea/ philosophy . that mind mind cannot follow the path . It is stoped from reaching something which beyond human's concepts and dualism. That something called Truth is exactly the eseence of buddhist teachings just like the essence of other classical religions . You can call it "God" if you wish because it is ultimately exactly this same. ( not in the modern often common understanding of God : Superhuman, Demiurge, and so on. but the classical one : Mind like ultimate reality which isn't really reality or Mind because is beyond any concepts and so on : Via negativa ) That is the common denominator of real religions: Truth can be experienced not explained.
Thanks excellent
Pragmatically speaking, if thinking of these things as demons or hells, and treating them as such, gets the results you want, then there's nothing to say you shouldn't.
Thanks, Brad! I've been discussing this matter of the interpretation of authenticity, and I've thought about it pretty much the same way you presented it here. Heavens, hells, angels, and demons roam all world religions, and within all religions, some people interpret them literally or symbolically. A literal interpretation easily leads to fundamentalism, which makes religion very restrictive and very judgmental. It also leads to a deepening conflict between religion and reality. In my opinion, Buddhism is reborn in every meditation practice, from the basis that supposedly arose from the realization of a supposed person in India 2500 years ago. Meditation itself is the gateway to original Buddhism.
Would shakyamuni have a twitter account or a threads account
As has been stated elsewhere in the comments already, Evan Thompson’s book “Why I am Not a Buddhist” is quite pivotal and provides a very good intellectual argument against Buddhist modernism. I also feel modernism’s influence is pernicious. Some very good and fairly recent interviews on RUclips with Dr. Thompson-Steve over at Guru Viking has done two now, and they’re highly worth watching. Brad, I think you would find Thompson insightful and very reasonable and worth listening to or reading. (I should mention, he is NOT trying to convince people not to be Buddhist, that’s not his angle at all. He didn’t intend his book to be like Bertrand Russell’s book about Christianity with a similar name, Thompson states this.)
Some of your thoguhts here sound similar to Perennial Philosophy, wonder what your thoughts on that and it's relation to Zen would be.
Maybe it would be interesting to make a video, what did not change during this buddhist adaption process. Are there any core teachings, mind attitudes, practices which are unchanged?
The idea that Buddhism was pure and pristine in the Buddha's lifetime and then degenerated is in itself a modernist idea, associated with Protestantism. I think the book (which is very interesting) points this out.😉
I love the buddhism of Ziggy
i expected you to mention the meiji reinterpretation of buddhism here. Maybe in another video ..
I do worry that the subtleties of what the Buddha was saying may have gotten lost due to people trying to pretty up the dogma. That said, it's hard to believe in literal rebirth and I wouldn't have made it living the harsh conditions of a monk during the Buddha's time.
I feel like the fun aspect has been sucked out in zen.
Like in gnosticism, there was a sacred chamber in which the unification of male and female was celebrated...which became taboo in later christianism.
Have you read Zen Mind Beginner's Mind?
Didn't the OG Buddha say on his death bed that he didn't even expect Buddhism to survive very long? Or that he expected it to change? I can't remember where I heard that... I think Richard Greer said something to that effect on that 3.5hr long PBS special 🙃
Yes, Buddhism started as a practice of metaphysics...and gradually degenerated into a religion...which is 'secularized metaphysics'.
Brad Warner, you stand accused of committing a Buddhist Modernism. How do you plead?
He’s a witch!
woof!
I think Ziggy is the true modernist here, thus the jury decided Brad is not guilty
Well, all religions change. Buddhism started changing the moment the Buddha nirvanized...
Hoisting your own petard?
there’s nothing in this world more paranormal, supernatural and anti-materialist than consciousness itself :) demons and other realms are a footnote to Mind.
Thanks for the Pink Panther intro. Fun. Always loved Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau. What that commenter is doing, aside from a little gaslighting, is what many people have done over the centuries. My buddhism is better than your buddhism ‘cuz it’s closest to what Buddha taught. Or, they slide into a fundamentalist stance, beat their chests, and say, “My buddhism is the one true buddhism.” This all falls into a sort of third mode of what religious scholars term repristinization: the false efforts of trying to return to the one true pure form. As you pointed out, ain’t possible. People can have ole timey buddhism but they can’t have the original, only Buddha knows the original. Go Ziggy! Time for coffee
Oh good gravy! Read Brad's book ''Hardcore Zen'', learn to sit Zazen. The rest is Fluffernutter! 🤣(any and all references to marshmellow sandwich fillers is purely coincidental!)😉
Evan Thompson’s book “why I am not a buddhist” provides a philosophical argument against buddhist modernism, particularly the idea that buddhism is a “science of the mind”. It’s an interesting read - Thompson is quite pro-buddhism.
Seconded. Thompsons work on it is great. Many good interviews with him on RUclips, as well.
Welcome to the anthropcene.
Simplistic view of Christianity, there Brad, which I know you’re just referencing by analogy. There was no such religion during Jesus’s life.
To be honest I mainly watch videos on zen for entertainment.
I vibe with theravada and I get the feeling that some fundamental teachings seem to have been thrown out the window in the zen lineage. Wikipedia has a surprisingly good overview in the theravada article in the subsection Doctrine/Core Teachings.
I wonder if you were aware of these teachings and if they were beneficial to your meditation practice?
Personally I especially miss metta and the jhanas in zen, which have been profoundly beneficial to me.
Highly recommend Evan Thompson’s work on Buddhist modernism. Theravada can fall into the modernist trap quite badly. So can Zen, but Theravada almost always bills itself as pristine ancient teaching, with no supernaturalism, or unprovable truth claims (the reality: it is not, there is, and it certainly makes such claims). Zen is interesting in that it kind of had that vein of thought even before the modern era, but can also (and certainly often does) fall into a similar intellectual trap as Theravada in modern times.
@@baizhanghuaihai2298 I find the Thai Forest Tradition a really good school of Theravada Buddhism that has rooted quite strongly in the West. I mostly follow a group of Canadian monks *Ajahn Sona, Ajahn Sudanto, Ajahn Punnadhammo|* and also Zen teachers I like Brad Warner, Muho and a few obscurer ones. Also I cannot forget mentioning Ajahn Sumedho and Ajahn Jayasaro.
Inevitably I find that this was something I found limiting, the holiness of the Pali canon and its value as the sole authentic doctrine. Nevertheless, the Pali Canon does hold great texts to deepen once practice and also educate himself or herself in certain virtues and values. Just like the entire discipline that lies behind just sitting.
I think they are complementary tastes that become a bit irreconciable when you focus on their specific metaphysics. Dualistic vs Non Dualistic, Sunyata, Nirvana. This is another debate!
The practice though, I see a lot of references to Theravada in Zen. And to Zen in Theravada too. The latter has not avoided the contact, in fact, I remember to my surprise, finding Zen books in Japanese at a Theravada monastery which, by the way, was the first one of its kind to be constructed in Europe *outskirts of Berlin, Fronau, Germany.
Thank you for the recommendation. I will try and get it Evan Thompson’s book.
Saludos!
Buddhism evolves with time, location and culture. I read that book some time ago. I remember it being good
Are you a clever fella didn't even know him
Actual hell is here, and goes by the name of "Twitter"
Repent modernists ! ! Accept Buddha in your heart and be reborn in the Kingdom of the Dharma ....
Its entirely possible to spend your whole sitting still in lotus posture and NEVER enter Samadhi.
Samadhi is like the sun at the center of a solar system...everything else in Buddhism is held in place by its gravitational pull.
So you can be a Buddhist academic with years of study AND you can sit on a cushion for a lifetime......and still never get it.
Love. Kind kisses. What you wesr7ng
As of June 1, 2023, Brad has a net worth approximately $5 Million
lol
The website also knew you were in Dimentia 13, yet didn't know your religion!
Wow! Someone needs to tell my bank I’m worth that much.
Some peoples’ Buddhism is praising Buddha like he’s God. Other people chant and don’t sit. Lots of different flavors.
My sangha just sits a lot with a little chanting, some one-on-one meetings with my teacher and stuff like that. I have no problem with what anyone does, and it can be called Buddhism.
Yes Buddhism is very flexible. I noticed similarities between (for example) people who worshiped a statue of Mary in South America and people in Asia who worshiped a statue of the Buddha. The background of these two religions are obviously very different, but the way of worship seemed similar . And often it's because their lives were also similar These peoples had hard lives ( especially in the past ) .They did backbraking work for 10 hours a day, had children to raise, etc, etc .They didn't have the time or education to practice , meditate & study . They just needed a higher power to pray to in bad times, give hope, and inspire.
"There are as many lives of Christ as there are believers." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"The originators of Buddhism didn't intend to make a static religion which could never be changed".
As the Buddha taught, all things are impermanent, all phenomena are empty. Emptiness, rather than conjuring images of a lack of something, is the engine of change. All things change, including Buddhism. This is simply the nature of relative reality. When you uncover your true nature, you realise that you didn't need a teacher or Buddhism (I haven't uncovered my true nature yet). Buddha explained the four noble truths. How you liberate yourself depends on your karmic baggage. If for no other reason, this is why the methods (and there are many in Buddhism) for liberation should be flexible. The core 'truths' are not subject to alteration, but the means of revealing these core truths are. Just my 2 cents worth and how I've come to understand my own practice.