8 ms·

> Chen: For the overwhelming majority of Asian Buddhists, Buddhism is a devotional practice. Bowing to images of deities, burning incense, worshiping at an alta

by rg111 4y ago

> Chen: For the overwhelming majority of Asian Buddhists, Buddhism is a devotional practice. Bowing to images of deities, burning incense, worshiping at an altar — those are all fundamental elements of Buddhist practice. There is this acknowledgement of worshiping higher beings. Meditation was not at all a mainstream lay practice in Buddhism. It only became popular in the early twentieth century, when Buddhist reformers such as the Burmese monk Mahasi Sayadaw, founder of modern Vipassana meditation, promoted it as a lay Buddhist practice. Mindfulness, as it was practiced for most of its history in Asia, was a very elite practice reserved only for advanced monastics. But Jack Kornfield, who is one of a number of influential teachers responsible for making Buddhist meditation go mainstream, understood that devotional Buddhism would be an obstacle for white Americans. He emphasized meditation because he understood that devotional Buddhism would be too associated with “religious” practice. This paragraph is so so wrong. Where do I even start? She says that others are appropriating Buddhism, and she goes on to do just that. Yuck. And no, meditation wasn’t reserved for the monastic elites. Did she even study Buddhism at all? Buddha said in his address to Ananda, that thousands of his disciples who are in households, and not monks, have attained Nirvana. Not only did they meditate, they attained Nirvana- the highest goal. This person is saying all sorts of wrong things. If you go by Gautama Buddha's teachings only, you will know that none of the common practices nowadays are kind of forbidden by Buddha. The bowing down, the incense sticks- these are later additions, and never encouraged by the Buddha.

pessimizer 4y ago
That paragraph has specific names and references so I can verify what is being said. You're just offering bare contrary claims and drama. > Where do I even start? Start with a claim you think is wrong, and explain how it is wrong with enough information that I don't have to trust you.
- rg111 4y ago
  Read Walpola Rahula's "What the Buddha Taught". You will know how far deviated incense burning and bowing to pictures are from Buddha's teaching. Buddhism is a very rational philosophy. If you study Buddhism in the light of it being a protest against established thiestic, ritualistic religion in India, these will start making much more sense. As far as McMeditation is from Buddhism, the same is true for regular people worshipping Buddha like a god. Religion might have democratic elements, but truth isn't democratic.
realreality 4y ago
If you read the “Inquiry of Ugra”, you’ll see that the ideal layperson is nothing like the average American Buddhist. The layperson is supposed to live like a monk and hope to be reborn as a proper monastic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugraparipṛcchā_Sūtra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugraparipṛcchā_Sūtra
- rg111 4y ago
  This is just an answer to one person's enquiry. I have read another which I cannot remember the name for. Buddha, with the help of ten directions, tells a layman to do his ten-fold duties. One of them is keeping his wife happy, another one is about having friends, another one is about earning money and growing wealth. Please read Walpola Rahula's "What the Buddha Taught".
  - realreality 4y ago
    I think it's folly to try to essentialize "the Buddha", when it's likely that Siddhartha Gautama never even existed. My point in bringing up Ugra was to show that many/most sects of Buddhism have been predominantly focused on monasticism. In the sutras, advanced lay people are the exception, not the rule. And the surrounding societies understand that there's a difference. But in the west, lay people have higher expectations for spiritual attainment...
akprasad 4y ago
You seem to take the author's language here as describing early Buddhism, but I think she is describing the observed history of Asian Buddhism, presumably East and Southeast Asian Buddhism. I think this is a clearer reading given that she starts with "Asian Buddhists," focuses on the Burmese tradition, mentions again "for most of its history in Asia," mentions Jack Kornfield who studied in the Thai tradition, etc. For the language at the end of your comment, this kind of sola scriptura [1] approach is valuable and worthwhile, and it is part of how lay meditation traditions were revived in Asian Buddhism [2] -- but when you describe Asian Buddhist traditions as "later additions ... never encouraged by the Buddha," isn't this what the author has in mind with her next paragraph? Copied for your convenience: > I want to clarify, by the way, that I’m not necessarily critical of American Buddhist entrepreneurs. The problem is if you mistake this white American Buddhism for all Buddhism, or claim that this is the “right” or “only” way to practice Buddhism. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura [2]: https://vividness.live/protestant-buddhism https://vividness.live/protestant-buddhism
- rg111 4y ago
  It's fair is she mentions that she is describing Buddhism as per current SE-Asian practices. Then it is fair. > The problem is if you mistake this white American Buddhism for all Buddhism, or claim that this is the “right” or “only” way to practice Buddhism. But she wants to make the readers believe that her version of Buddhism is the "right" way to do it? And she is rebuking the white Buddhists for deviating from it?
depr 4y ago
>Did she even study Buddhism at all? Did you? https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/biggest-misconception-about-buddhism/ https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/biggest-misconception-about-... https://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/ten-misconceptions-about-buddhism-249449 https://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/ten-misconceptions-about-b... https://vividness.live/the-making-of-buddhist-modernism https://vividness.live/the-making-of-buddhist-modernism The book you are referring to means nothing because it is a recent interpretation exactly as the author of the article is describing. From The Making of Buddhist Modernism: >1. Rahula selects from the vast corpus of Buddhist literature certain features that can be interpreted in such a way as to resonate with a modern worldview, especially the Enlightenment, Protestantism, Transcendentalism, and science. >2. This selection excludes or obscures other features of Buddhist literature, for example the many stories of miracles, magical feats, supernatural beings, and literal heavens and hells. >3. When Rahula does address these, he tends to present them as ethically significant myth, symbol, or allegory. >4. By focusing on elite literature, Rahula’s presentation occludes many features of the tradition on the ground, such as ritual, devotion, and exorcism, that are actually more central to many Buddhists’ lives than abstract doctrines. >Many ordinary Buddhists would not recognize much of what Rahula presents as their practices, attitudes, and beliefs. What he suppresses would give a fuller picture of Buddhism in its various historical manifestations. His emphasis on tolerance of other views, for example, is certainly not reflected in the many Buddhist polemical texts savaging opponents’ positions, or the religious conflicts in his own Sri Lanka that Buddhists themselves have participated in. What he refers to as “the Buddhist” is an idealized figure having little to do with living Buddhists. For example, in contrast to the pervasive practices among Buddhists for accruing merit in order to gain a higher rebirth, Rahula claims, on the basis of the doctrines of ana tman and impermanence, that “the Buddhist” is “never worried about” the problem of life after death. Rahula’s Buddhism is the idealized, textualized Buddhism of the orientalist scholars. and it goes on.
- rg111 4y ago
  My tbought are limited to Buddha's teachings only. SEAns can live their life as they see fit, they just shouldn’t demand that everyone conform to their version. > occludes many features of the tradition on the ground, such as ritual, devotion, and exorcism, that are actually more central to many Buddhists’ lives than abstract doctrines. Same goes here. Just because hundreds of thousands of people are practising Buddhism in one way, that doesn't become the only way or the actual way. They shouldn’t want conformation from white western buddhists. That's what this Chen person is demanding. If white western buddhists want to draw from Dhammapada and Buddha's teachings only, and want to completely ignore what SEAns do on the ground, then that's fine. Again, please stop treating what actual Buddhism is in the lense of anthropology. Treat it as a Philosophy like it was originally intended by the Buddha and fellows like Ashvaghosa, Buddhaghosa, Nagarjuna, etc. Please do not let the SEAns determine what actual Buddhism is. I have seen and studied Buddhism in the context of Indian philosophy, and it matches the white buddhist version (like Robert Wright) far more than the worshipping, thiestic SEAns. Please study some Buddhism. And read debates of Nagarjuna (you need some level of rigor, experience in STEM/logic, to get them). When you read the logics of Buddhists versus Nyaya and Nyaya-Vaisheshika, you will start to get how right western buddhists are. Theistic, worshipping, candle-lighting Buddhists of SEA are nothing like what these guys were. What SEAns practice as Buddhism is no more actual Buddhism than the white western Mindfulness guys. You are so out of depth.

by rg111 4y ago

pessimizer 4y ago

That paragraph has specific names and references so I can verify what is being said. You're just offering bare contrary claims and drama. > Where do I even start? Start with a claim you think is wrong, and explain how it is wrong with enough information that I don't have to trust you.

rg111 4y ago
Read Walpola Rahula's "What the Buddha Taught". You will know how far deviated incense burning and bowing to pictures are from Buddha's teaching. Buddhism is a very rational philosophy. If you study Buddhism in the light of it being a protest against established thiestic, ritualistic religion in India, these will start making much more sense. As far as McMeditation is from Buddhism, the same is true for regular people worshipping Buddha like a god. Religion might have democratic elements, but truth isn't democratic.

realreality 4y ago

If you read the “Inquiry of Ugra”, you’ll see that the ideal layperson is nothing like the average American Buddhist. The layperson is supposed to live like a monk and hope to be reborn as a proper monastic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugraparipṛcchā_Sūtra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugraparipṛcchā_Sūtra

rg111 4y ago
This is just an answer to one person's enquiry. I have read another which I cannot remember the name for. Buddha, with the help of ten directions, tells a layman to do his ten-fold duties. One of them is keeping his wife happy, another one is about having friends, another one is about earning money and growing wealth. Please read Walpola Rahula's "What the Buddha Taught".
- realreality 4y ago
  I think it's folly to try to essentialize "the Buddha", when it's likely that Siddhartha Gautama never even existed. My point in bringing up Ugra was to show that many/most sects of Buddhism have been predominantly focused on monasticism. In the sutras, advanced lay people are the exception, not the rule. And the surrounding societies understand that there's a difference. But in the west, lay people have higher expectations for spiritual attainment...

akprasad 4y ago

You seem to take the author's language here as describing early Buddhism, but I think she is describing the observed history of Asian Buddhism, presumably East and Southeast Asian Buddhism. I think this is a clearer reading given that she starts with "Asian Buddhists," focuses on the Burmese tradition, mentions again "for most of its history in Asia," mentions Jack Kornfield who studied in the Thai tradition, etc. For the language at the end of your comment, this kind of sola scriptura [1] approach is valuable and worthwhile, and it is part of how lay meditation traditions were revived in Asian Buddhism [2] -- but when you describe Asian Buddhist traditions as "later additions ... never encouraged by the Buddha," isn't this what the author has in mind with her next paragraph? Copied for your convenience: > I want to clarify, by the way, that I’m not necessarily critical of American Buddhist entrepreneurs. The problem is if you mistake this white American Buddhism for all Buddhism, or claim that this is the “right” or “only” way to practice Buddhism. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura [2]: https://vividness.live/protestant-buddhism https://vividness.live/protestant-buddhism

rg111 4y ago
It's fair is she mentions that she is describing Buddhism as per current SE-Asian practices. Then it is fair. > The problem is if you mistake this white American Buddhism for all Buddhism, or claim that this is the “right” or “only” way to practice Buddhism. But she wants to make the readers believe that her version of Buddhism is the "right" way to do it? And she is rebuking the white Buddhists for deviating from it?

depr 4y ago

>Did she even study Buddhism at all? Did you? https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/biggest-misconception-about-buddhism/ https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/biggest-misconception-about-... https://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/ten-misconceptions-about-buddhism-249449 https://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/ten-misconceptions-about-b... https://vividness.live/the-making-of-buddhist-modernism https://vividness.live/the-making-of-buddhist-modernism The book you are referring to means nothing because it is a recent interpretation exactly as the author of the article is describing. From The Making of Buddhist Modernism: >1. Rahula selects from the vast corpus of Buddhist literature certain features that can be interpreted in such a way as to resonate with a modern worldview, especially the Enlightenment, Protestantism, Transcendentalism, and science. >2. This selection excludes or obscures other features of Buddhist literature, for example the many stories of miracles, magical feats, supernatural beings, and literal heavens and hells. >3. When Rahula does address these, he tends to present them as ethically significant myth, symbol, or allegory. >4. By focusing on elite literature, Rahula’s presentation occludes many features of the tradition on the ground, such as ritual, devotion, and exorcism, that are actually more central to many Buddhists’ lives than abstract doctrines. >Many ordinary Buddhists would not recognize much of what Rahula presents as their practices, attitudes, and beliefs. What he suppresses would give a fuller picture of Buddhism in its various historical manifestations. His emphasis on tolerance of other views, for example, is certainly not reflected in the many Buddhist polemical texts savaging opponents’ positions, or the religious conflicts in his own Sri Lanka that Buddhists themselves have participated in. What he refers to as “the Buddhist” is an idealized figure having little to do with living Buddhists. For example, in contrast to the pervasive practices among Buddhists for accruing merit in order to gain a higher rebirth, Rahula claims, on the basis of the doctrines of ana tman and impermanence, that “the Buddhist” is “never worried about” the problem of life after death. Rahula’s Buddhism is the idealized, textualized Buddhism of the orientalist scholars. and it goes on.

rg111 4y ago
My tbought are limited to Buddha's teachings only. SEAns can live their life as they see fit, they just shouldn’t demand that everyone conform to their version. > occludes many features of the tradition on the ground, such as ritual, devotion, and exorcism, that are actually more central to many Buddhists’ lives than abstract doctrines. Same goes here. Just because hundreds of thousands of people are practising Buddhism in one way, that doesn't become the only way or the actual way. They shouldn’t want conformation from white western buddhists. That's what this Chen person is demanding. If white western buddhists want to draw from Dhammapada and Buddha's teachings only, and want to completely ignore what SEAns do on the ground, then that's fine. Again, please stop treating what actual Buddhism is in the lense of anthropology. Treat it as a Philosophy like it was originally intended by the Buddha and fellows like Ashvaghosa, Buddhaghosa, Nagarjuna, etc. Please do not let the SEAns determine what actual Buddhism is. I have seen and studied Buddhism in the context of Indian philosophy, and it matches the white buddhist version (like Robert Wright) far more than the worshipping, thiestic SEAns. Please study some Buddhism. And read debates of Nagarjuna (you need some level of rigor, experience in STEM/logic, to get them). When you read the logics of Buddhists versus Nyaya and Nyaya-Vaisheshika, you will start to get how right western buddhists are. Theistic, worshipping, candle-lighting Buddhists of SEA are nothing like what these guys were. What SEAns practice as Buddhism is no more actual Buddhism than the white western Mindfulness guys. You are so out of depth.