Dharma

I think it happened naturally as it did in China. The Monastic order of Buddhism took up too many resources without really returning anything to society in a tangible way that would allow the society to thrive. It finally collapsed under foreign invasion...muslims literally walked into India, while the Buddhists just meditated...

the Buddhist universities were hardly a place you would send your children so that they would become businessmen, administrators...they were a place they were to become Brahmin...which was bad since all brahmins traditionally were supposed to do was meditate, beg for a living, and teach and a true brahmin had nothing to do with society ....something hardly conducive for a vibrant society.

perfectbite

Dharma, so what direction do you see Western Buddhism heading in? I believe that learning to be open to the spirit (prajna) has great value but Buddhist orthodoxy definitely seems to be quite convinced that its view of Buddhist thought is the right one and in orthodoxy's view it seems that 'prajna' is more of a word and idea worthy of scholarly investigation than a force or virtue to be encouraged and reckoned with.

(P.S. Bodhidharma's spiritual attainment was enlightenment. If he already was enlightened, his nine years in the cave would not have done him any good at all.)

Dharma

western Buddhism is too new and there really aren't too many "western Buddhists" for me to discern it's direction...since currently there are no westerners OR easterners who have attained the highest that Buddhism talks about... :huh:

Buddhism started flying because a whole group of Indian monks started attaining miraculous demonstratable powers, which allowed China and Japan to convert...then the Chinese and Japanese started attaining powers and so massive conversions were possible, these Chinese and Japanese schools of Buddhism were then considered authentic Buddhism schools, separate from the Indian ones...

Similarly western Buddhism will only be considered a true school of Buddhism and will have a chance to grow in a big way only when some western monks really starts attaining powers, revelations...etc...

however west should gaurd against too much monasticism and realize that nirvana can be attained while living in society and doing your duties...

perfectbite

Dharma, I am having trouble with this because a display of powers and revelations etc. is not truly Buddhist. The powers you speak of are called siddhis and for classical (Vedic) Yoga and hard core Buddhism the flaunted exercise of the siddhis (distortions of reality) are no more than tacky parlor tricks.

I am also having trouble with this statement because in my recent thinking I have come to discern not only a difference in means but also a difference in ends between a Zen Priesthood and the Buddha's monastic Sangha and the West may be headed in the direction of a worldly Zen Priesthood to head up its practice of worldly Buddhism which may not be the way to approach the Mind Only doctrine of Buddhism, not that the Sangha can do much more than pontificate on it but occassionally one of its members 'stumbles' onto the truth so 20 maybe 30 years of one person telling the truth about reality as it really is, and having the forum to do so, can make up for a few centuries of humming and hawing and great sucking of teeth on the parts of hundreds of ordinary minded monks and nuns and Zen priests.

Wot sez you sez I?

premjan

I think the principal thing about "mind theory" is the "nonattachment" thing. You fix on something mentally, and then you detach temporarily to prevent from fixating on it. This moves the mental coherence property forwards faster than purely fixational processes. The physical sangha is just a big red herring. Some people naturally fixate less than others, while others are stubborn materialists and bleed mentally at every turn of circumstance.

Dharma

let's just say those "tricks" although not to be attached to, still demonstrate the superiority of the practice...in other words, the Dalai Lama is no Bodhidharma, who literally was to have floated on one foot on a leaf across a river...the Chinese were quite impressed.

Today Shaolin monastary is one of the most impressive monastic traditions on earth, a legendary monastary that non-Chinese dream of entering, since many Chinese became supreme masters in their own right...it was from this that the Japanese masters also started major Zen monastic traditions in Japan which are the envy of the Buddhist world...currently there are no western supreme masters in Buddhism, atleast none who can start an entire school and become a stuff of legends... so unless we see some 7 foot blonde German Buddhist tap dancing on water...I'm afraid I don't see western Buddhism really catching on and displacing Christianity or Islam... :rolling:

Buddhism alone created the greatest number of spiritual masters after Hinduism...Abrahamic traditions literally cannot compare even now...even now Christian, Jewish, Muslim saints pale in comparison to the highly attained Yogi siddhs...only when either the Hindus or Buddhists attain the highest, can the Abrahamic religions be proven to be a bunch of spiritual hooligans and quacks...

hinduwoman

I don't think the question makes sense in the Indian context. I posted a lenghty piece on this question. Reposting it:

When Buddha came society had become ritual obsessed and too dominated by Brahamanical orthodoxy. Buddhism offered release from both. As a result mass conversions, among both the upper and lower classes occurred. Alarmed at this, samajpatis were forced to undertake reforms. And of course there were many who genuinely desired to reform Hinduism without leaving it. The Gita is one example of such a process. Slowly Hindu society became less rigid and forms of worship more personal. This lessened the hold of Buddhism and many became adherents of both faiths. Adi Shankaracharya with his brilliant debating powers, organizing capacity and revival of ancient places of worship weakened it even more. Finally Hinduism coopted Buddhism by turning Buddha into an avatar. So most Hindus who felt the urge to follow Buddha simply worshipped him as another form of Vishnu.

Buddhism itself had been affected through the centuries. Buddha professed atheism, but his followers turned him to the God. They dragged in stories of jataka and other myths. They built huge temples and performed rites of worship very like Hindus. As a result the mass of ordinary people could no longer see much difference between the two.

Any institution that gets power becomes more interested in keeping that power. With many rich people and kings becoming Buddhists the priests indulged in gathering wealth and doing in other sects which could threaten them. They meddled in affairs of states, including succession quarrels. in short Buddhist leaders became politicians --- and who the hell respects politicians?. Of course the common people was no longer as impressed as they were by Buddha.

Corruption within the sangha. Many became monks and nuns to get away from the world or to enjoy the good life, instead of genuine spiritual searching. There were many scandals about their sexual misconduct and general behaviour. In fact by 300 B.C, conditions have so detoriorated that Chanakya says that Buddhist monks and nuns make good spies.

Religions to prosper need state support. After the Mauryas when Guptas came to power they patronised Brahamanical orthodoxy. Buddhists were not persecuted as such, but all the money and favour went to Hindu instituitons and pundits.

[Buddhist universities were good ones, and till the coming of the muslims they flourished.]

Finally when the Muslims came there was forced conversions of course. More importantly, they destroyed the universities and libraries, and slaughtered the monks. Ambedkar points out that since in Buddhism a priest has to be ordained this was a serious blow, because there was hardly anyone or any schools left to teach one how to be a priest. Inevitably Buddhism disappeared and only survived in isolated pockets.

premjan

Basically, apart from "reducing mental suffering" I fail to see the practical aspect of a huge sangha (one might as well perform meditation on one's own). Then the universities probably taught some practical or scientific subjects like astronomy but a lot of the stuff that was taught was probably philosophy, which is useless by modern day standards. Plus I bet it took a lot of resources to keep a place like Nalanda running. So I bet the monks lost direction and the people just lost interest.

perfectbite

Premjam,

'Mind only' is much more than a theory, it is the actual basis of enlightenment. Everything (all things) are mind and realization of mind only (our true nature) is beyond the intellect. The property of mental coherence has about the same relationship to our true nature (mind only) as a single, solitary dandelion has to do with the planet Earth.

Hinduwoman,

Thank you for your reposting which I had previously read. Instead of rephrasing my question let me ask a new question.

If the Hindu form of Buddhism was very valuable to its people it seems (to me anyway) that it could not have been as easily stamped out as it was even given the forced conversions imposed by the Muslims.

Even after centuries of Turkish/Muslim rule Greece regained its Eastern Christianity (it had gone underground) very quickly after the Turks left so it is not unheard of for deeply rooted beliefs, ordained priests or no, to reestablish themselves.


Was it that the very fine line between scholarship (knowing the basis of one's belief) and practice was transgressed so much and so often that the ordinary Hindu folk, like the ordinary folk subjugated to the unrelenting human sacrifices of the Aztecs and Incas, were glad that such a meddlesomely corrupt Buddhist hierarchy had shuffled off the stage? The Buddha had levelled a similar charge of the subsitution of rote ritual for materialistic hire over true spiritual effort against the Brahmins of his time a thousand years before Nalanda was established.


To the Western mind general Hindu belief is absolute chaos but, and it took me a long time to see it, the basis of Hinduism is a conscious embrace of myriad life, except of course for the ascetics. I suppose my further question would be does Buddhism fit in with that view of life? Was it the corruption of the Buddha's Dharma that made Buddhism unressurectible or was it Buddhism itself?

premjan

Well, even the original Samkhya philosophy did not go so far as to say that all things are mind or that mind is a fundamental process of nature. It used to divide the world into material (prakriti) and mental (purusha) parts where the mental arose from the physical. It is possible they included the interplay of natural forces as being "mental". Anyway it is mere speculation to argue that mind is as fundamental as matter.