adren@line

I often see arguments on here that the Buddhism as courted by westerners is merely a recent invention that has been self-tailored to the critical western mind.

Part of this argument is that the "truer" Buddhism as based on the Pali Canon (A Theravadan text) is extremely superstitious an in many cases unscientific and is often used to dismiss Buddhism since it is the oldest Buddhist text.

However, my argument is that the modern, western interpretation of Buddhism is indeed the closest to the "original form" as preached by Siddharta Gautama as based on some key facts:

1. The authenticity of the Pali Canon itself is disputed. There are scholars who state that it is an accurate representation of what Buddhism was and there are others who state the opposite.

2. It has been a characteristic of Indians to inject almost anything with superstition. Both the Gita and Mahabharata were most probably based on actual events (as some evidence suggests) but both epics are full of superstition and mythology. The story of the life of Adi Shankar has been injected with mythology.

There is hardly a historical record as recorded by the Indians that isn't mythological. The wars of the Aryans against the Dasa as recorded in the Vedas mention the Dasa in certain instances as having several heads and eyes.

India is an extremely superstitious country full of extremely superstitious people (reference stories about girls marrying dogs/goats/trees, etc). To assume that Buddhism, which started in India, was immune to such superstition as the hundreds of years past would not fit in with historical Indian trends.

3. A grand tradition of philosophical, intellectual, and esoteric inquiry existed in India long-before Buddhism arrived on the scene. This tradition produced the philosophical book of the Upanishads, which represents the root of Buddhist philosophy. Without the Upanishads and the ascetics/yogis who established these traditions, there would have been no Buddhism. This tradition rivaled that of the ancient Greeks and according to some sources, heavily influenced Greek philosophy.

The modern, western take on Buddhism is hardly any different from the traditions of India dating back to almost 3000 years. Some of the Upanishads were still being written when Buddhism came on the scene, which is often referenced as India's golden age.

So to assume that this intellectual and philosophical take on metaphysics and religion was absent from India is completely erroneous, especially when Buddhism arrived on the scene, as this tradition was then in full-force. Buddhism would have fit perfectly into this philosophical culture and there is no reason to doubt that it did not, as the prevailing form of superstitious, symbolic, ritual-dependent religion was Brahmanism, in which Buddhism does not fit into.

premjan

What is the relevance of Buddhism in the modern day?

xunzian

I like the argument, but personally, I like the "so what" argument better. Buddhism has adapted itself to every situation that it has been in. Thai Buddhism is different from Chinese Buddhism is different from Tibetan Buddhism -- why? Because these places are different and have different demands that need to be met.

Rather than try and hearken back to an original situation which cannot be proven (and speculation itself is dubious at best since the speculator invariably brings a lot of bias into the conjecture), why not look at the way Buddhism evolves and changes and embrace it? If I am trying to prove some aspect of genetics in my lab, I don't write the paper with the intent of showing that Mendel actually thought what I do; if I am trying to demonstrate an evolutionary principle, I don't go back to Origin of Species with the intent of demonstrating that Darwin knew this principle and it was waiting to be uncovered. Why should religion, if it is correct, be any different?

I think that also elegantly answers what the relevance of Buddhism is to the modern day, since it has adapted itself to living in the modern day. It provides a means of self-cultivation with continuity to keep us liked to the past, but a vibrancy that extends into the future.

Lógos Sokratikós

Evidence, please?

That's all that needs to be said (notice I said "said" not asked -Yes, it's a rhetorical question... I've been here long enough and asked for it long enough to be sure evidence won't be produced by the regulars here with, say, some 90% probability).

Here I would like to take advantage and elabotate some points:

(1)
I have nothing against creativity in Buddhism, that in the West (or in general lands not traditionally Buddhist) you snip out weird supernaturalistic items. I am aware Buddhism doesn't depend on some supposedly perfect "divine" revelation, as compared to Abrahamic religions.

What I have opposed consistently on IIDB is the practice of one asking "Is Buddhism this, is Buddhism that?" and answering positively, and then when somebody comes up with documented instances of BS in certain practices and texts, then it's "No, that isn't Buddhism" or "Buddhism doesn't have dogmata", which is sneaky.

(2)
I'm against concepts of enlightenment attainable solely via Buddhism that is superior to any other and that outsiders are "deluded" with consistency, a belief I find unsupported.

I find the concept of "freedom" from delusion both relative (no "perfect" release from delusion) and contingent (i.e. if you are relatively free from delusion, you must show you don't believe in most illusions presented to you).

Lógos Sokratikós

Exactly. You obviously have better rhetorical skills than I.

My empiricist side says: That is acceptable.
My inside side ( ) says: That is beautiful!

Styrofoamdeity

Wow, I couldn't have said this any better- though I have been trying on this forum for some time. Even if the Buddha's original and unadultered beliefs could be determined, how would that effect modern Buddhism? I woud posit that perhaps it would not effect it at all. The elements in modern Buddhism that "work" (for lack of a better way to express it) would continue to work either way.

Science moves on. Buddhism moves on. Does an understanding of modern physics or the viability of physics itself depend on knowing what the first physicist, Thales of Miletus, said about atoms? Nope. It is quite possible that a great many successful physicists do not know what he said on the topic, though they may have a great appreciation of Thales for his having "got the ball rolling".

I would argue that trying to determine what is "legitimate Buddhsim" by determining original intent is a bit of a fool's errand. Perhaps it is time to appreciate the successful elements of Buddhism as we find it now.

figuer

Teachings like the Eightfold Path and others of similar practical nature are attractive and seem worthy of assimilation.

Buddhism itself however is from my perspective an alien cultural tradition that has no relevance outside of its traditional areas of influence.

I have no interest in learning the meanings, subtle connotations or application of a collection of Sanskrit or Pali words.

Thus the concept of true vs. superstitious is irrelevant, since whatever is useful in Buddhism doesn't need to be taught as Buddhist (except as an historical footnote perhaps).

Lógos Sokratikós

I agree with you folks, nevertheless, this:

... is not happening. Buddhist teachers trained in the East teach the superstitious together with whatever is useful, and I notice a tinge of irritation when their beliefs about multiple lives and boddhisattvas questioned (even if performed in the form of a polite question). They don't seem to express a willingness to question themselves about what they have been taught and seem intolerant of "lack of faith" (faith meaning "trust" or whatever you want to assign to it).

The big problem here, then, is that questioning what you are told is part of the process of seeing through illusion, and the "disciplinary air" I see spoils the milk all the way.

aupmanyav

Adren, one cannot blame buddhism or hinduism for changing. They are built that way. Both depend on search for truth, hinduism more so. Hindus would give new definition to truth in each age (according to the knowledge of the age).

Mythology does not affect the truth. They are taken as children's stories, and one is supposed to understand beyond them. Girl's marrying dogs or trees is for the 'hoi polloi' (the unenlightened). Don't people laugh when they hear these stories? Hinduism (as also buddhism) exists at many levels.

Enlightenment is, again, a very personal thing. Different people attain it in different varieties. I find many faults with buddhist enlightenment.

The eight-fold path is with every religion, they call it variously. Basically these are the rules of society. Hindus call it 'Dharma'.

abaddon

If Buddhism has useful ideas, and you use one, then why not call it Buddhist and give credit to where it's due? I see a possible danger of people appropriating ideas, calling them something else, and leaving Buddhism in the shadows as nothing more than "that bunch of superstitious religious stuff."

For example, you could take whatever is useful in materialist philosophy and say "it's universally true so why call it materialism?" (Just imagine, to understand the analogy, a culture where the dominant outlook is non-materialist). The danger there is people who don't think the world is material might take some insights, call them something else (since all humans inevitably label things) while forgetting or rejecting its actual source. Basically claiming it as their own.

The end result for Buddhism for such an event is it's assimilated into another, more dominant philosophy within a culture and thus loses its value as its own (more-or-less) coherent, integrated body of thought. I get a viewpoint from Buddhism, as I do from Gestalt Therapy as I do from phenomenology as I do from "deep ecology" environmentalism. The identities of these bodies of thought helps me organize a variety of perspectives, and I don't see any value in blurring them into only one perspective.

If a society does something like that, then the one perspective becomes "truth" and the "outsiders" to that truth get labeled "superstitious" or other and then get lambasted for not conforming to the dominant view. It's much better to have a pluralistic society with a number of groups and views. So I favor calling emptiness or "interdependence" (sunyata) a Buddhist idea if the person utilizing the concept got it from Buddhism.