3 ms·

>Did she even study Buddhism at all? Did you? https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/biggest-misconception-about-buddhism/ https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/biggest-mi

by 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.
- depr 4y ago
  Chen is talking about Buddhism the religion, which millions of people have practiced and are still practicing. You wrote that Chen was wrong saying meditation was/is not a mainstream lay practice. It is not wrong. While you might be able to construct a philosophy from the Buddha's teachings, Buddhism is not it. The Buddha never created Buddhism; he never said these are my teachings and this is Buddhism. Buddhism was established by the people who listened to him. It also contains aspects such as the vinaya and rebirth, which make it not a philosophy but a religion (or are rules on robes philosophical ideas?). Therefore it is entirely appropriate to look at it from an anthropological lens. And from that lens, it is not inaccurate to claim that lay people did not generally practice meditation, and there has been reform, by people who likely had to invent their meditation practice as it did not come by lineage. Surely you won't claim that Jack Kornfield himself read the scriptures or whatever and got closer to the Buddhism as Buddha intended it! And he left stuff out to make it palatable in the West, unless he teaches about the realm of hungry ghosts? That makes what Chen wrote entirely accurate both in the paragraph you quoted and in a wider sense as well.

by depr 4y ago

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.

depr 4y ago
Chen is talking about Buddhism the religion, which millions of people have practiced and are still practicing. You wrote that Chen was wrong saying meditation was/is not a mainstream lay practice. It is not wrong. While you might be able to construct a philosophy from the Buddha's teachings, Buddhism is not it. The Buddha never created Buddhism; he never said these are my teachings and this is Buddhism. Buddhism was established by the people who listened to him. It also contains aspects such as the vinaya and rebirth, which make it not a philosophy but a religion (or are rules on robes philosophical ideas?). Therefore it is entirely appropriate to look at it from an anthropological lens. And from that lens, it is not inaccurate to claim that lay people did not generally practice meditation, and there has been reform, by people who likely had to invent their meditation practice as it did not come by lineage. Surely you won't claim that Jack Kornfield himself read the scriptures or whatever and got closer to the Buddhism as Buddha intended it! And he left stuff out to make it palatable in the West, unless he teaches about the realm of hungry ghosts? That makes what Chen wrote entirely accurate both in the paragraph you quoted and in a wider sense as well.