[pokerbonuscod]

Tijampel,

If I have understand your last post let me issue this question. If not, let me know it.

Isn't that a kind of needed "cultural dressing" in terms of mundane human nature?

Personally I do not have a contemporary or any other kind of imagine of Buddha. When I read a sutta the only thing is that Buddha is speaking that sutta and that is all. No need to go further.

I have not found any problem at following and practicing the early teachings in this "post modern" civilization context.

Furthermore, they are devoid of any cultural dressing that should be "modernized" or updated.

That has happend with the traditions endless struggle of the "such is this" and "such is that".

You can ignore that and go to the source.

So, I haven't found that problem. I haven't found the need to bring "into context" his deliberative instructions.

As an example, in Mexico, there are at least a thousand different Christs from dark skinned ones in areas of high historical African immigration to some very European "look" in some places where we can find communities with an Italian and French descent backgrounds.

All them are nothing more than just needed cultural superstitious artifacts. The real doctrine of Christ is not known. What makes this different "Christs" fascinating and charming is all the superstition and supernatural believes around them.

The real meaning of Christ is completely lost for the masses.

Then, isn't the removal of such custom given to the image of Buddha, in dependence of the superstitious believes of many cultures along historical time, a core aspect, so to get at the root of the deliberative early teachings?

The Dhamma spoken by the historical Buddha is timeless. It was not a by product of culture but a penetration of the true nature of things, including "human nature" which precisely as its highest defilement, there are found those cultural atavisms.

But anyway, at the very end of this discussion, everybody is in its own right to hold the believe that best comforts the mind.