abaddon

Because, as I said (and as you quoted), I've chosen to focus on the "true buddhism" in the topic's title, and you've chosen to focus on the "superstitious buddhism". (By "true buddhism" I'm simply borrowing the term in the thread's title... I mean that I want to discuss what I find of value in Buddhism, not characterize the whole of it in overly simple terms or focus on what I disvalue).

About your syllogism, you haven't demonstrated premise 1, that enlightenment is impossible. Premise 2 is true of all belief-systems. And even if both the premises were true, the sweeping conclusion doesn't follow.


That conclusion doesn't follow. If we aren't allowed to "bowdlerize" then nothing can change, either with differing cultures or with new evidence.

Can you explain why Buddhism must remain in its original form, whatever that was (I guess you think it must have been a very superstitious form)? You've made the assertion (along with several others) with no evidence beyond there's some "gods", hungry ghosts, etc., in Buddhism's various cultural expressions.

Lógos Sokratikós

It's not about that at all (nice try though, but no thanks to implying I'm THAT dumb). It's about enlightenment as defined by Buddhism itself is not attained via Buddhism.

It's not about Buddhism changing or not. It's about more than two thousand years of practice and it still could not destroy delusion and ignorance in those who practiced it. That is demonstrated by more than two thousand years of irrational beliefs.

Zrianc

Reason and education alone don't offer a way out of delusion, probably Buddhism alone (the religion) also doesn't offer a way out of delusion but together they have a greater chance than separately.
I don't think that we should throw away the baby with the bathwater.
If in democracy and capitalism there are poor people and crimes then that means that we should completely renounce democracy and capitalism?

abaddon

But has there never been an individual who achieved enlightenment?

Why do you think the whole historical/cultural caboodle had to achieve that and strip itself of superstition?

If that happened, would it qualify as a "bowdlerization"?

abaddon

A superstition is an unquestioning belief in supernatural things. I wouldn't use the word for either "mind made matter" or "matter made mind" opinions. Those are hypotheses on the nature of reality, and no one has the answer (or has conclusively shown their answer to be right) so there's no way to judge finally who's right and who's wrong.

See, I could call that "superstition" too if any metaphysical position that I disagreed with was taken for unquestioned supernatural beliefs. (My own guess is a variety of panpsychism. Matter-mind self-created (auto-poiesis) and it's all inter-related processes, not "things". There's no difference between matter and mind; one didn't squeeze out of the other. What we call "mind" is just more evident in some processes than others.)

I really just think he did not mean it literally as a person.

Yeah, as I understand, firstmost of Zen Buddhist expositors was Daisetz Suzuki, and then after him Alan Watts. Today it's many more, but I think the best introduction to eastern thought for westerners is still Alan Watts.

I see most people as fervent believers; it's not just religious people. Some persons may have more factually accurate beliefs in some regards, but that doesn't lessen the absolutist aspect to being a fervent believer because they tend to mix their cultural biases in with the facts. Then they seem unable to tell the difference between their opinions and their facts. And then they start wondering how other people could dare to see things differently than they do, as if there must be only one right view on everything.

wordy

Suppose Stephen Bachelor did achieved it. Did the other Buddhists realize he did? Not as I noticed. They mocked his book instead.
I don't know which site best present his views. Try wikipedia too.

Did they care about him trying to help Buddhism. Not much.

I could be right that Buddhist are as fundamentalistic as evangelistic Christians are. Only that most of us in West are blind to what goes wrong in Buddhism cause it is seen in a friendly light cause it is so different from the Abramic religions.

It is Taboo in our secular society to be critical to Buddhism. We love Dalai Lama here. He is a hero in Stockholm. He fill our biggest Arena here every time and Media just love him.

Lógos Sokratikós

It never did strip itself of superstition. It's still superstitious. In the west some have accommodated it to their tastes. Nothing in Buddhism accounts for stripping Buddhism from delusion. It's western enlightenment that does it (only historically western, but open to any, it's just plain reason and empiricism, which exists all around the world, it just historically happened to occur in the west).

And it is Bowlderization. Whitewashing Buddhism to make it look enlightening when it isn't, taking out the netherworlds, beings and such.

William

logos. I see your point about it being superstitious at the core, and having always been that way... You seem to think that western enlightenment ideals stripping Buddhism of such superstitious nonsense makes it "look enlightening when it isn't." Wouldn't this IMPROVE the whole thing? It seems to me the traditional western approach to education and critical thought could marry happily with the basics of Buddhism...

wordy

Will, but if those who are in charge of the Masters don't recognize this improvement. Could be ignored as it was ignored in Christianity and in Islam.

I made phone calls to several of the Buddhist centers here in Stockholm and they all only follow their Master. They don't act individually AFAIK

Sure there are always individual exceptions but that doesn't change how the Centers act and it is them that the new comers goes to. So Buddhism will not change. It will keep the superstition cause it is tradition. The cling to tradition and crave it to be as it always has been. No enlightenment.

abaddon

wordy,

I understand that traditionalist Buddhists will resist Batchelor's ideas. I looked for more information on his views and I found an essay: A Critical Examination of the Agnostic Buddhism of Stephen Batchelor. I intend to read it this weekend, and hope others will read at least some of it, as it seems highly relevant to whether secularizing Buddhism causes it to stop being "Buddhism".