DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**yWleIJm4** · 03-31-2011, 06:58 AM

2. Buddhism in the modern world must come under the scrutiny of modern science. People ask questions about rebirth and so forth in ways that may not have previously occurred.

Yes. Yes yes yes.

I think the new approach is to go back to what the Buddha taught. It's to try and separate "Buddhism" from "the Buddha's Dharma/Dhamma" in an effort to actualize the true meaning of his teachings in an effective way.

Agreed. I also think it does this a great injustice to refer to it as "Buddhism lite," as fojiao2 did and as some others do.

This is a term I've seen used a lot to refer to whatever this thing is that modern people do, and from what I've seen, it seems to be a favorite term for demeaning the dharma practice of people who don't believe in magical dragon realms or reincarnation or ghosts or gods or demons or luck. I'm not intending to accuse fojiao2 or using the term this way, but rather intending to bring up where and how else it seems to be used because I was reminded of it.

The thing referred to by many as "dharma lite" certainly requires that a lot of cultural baggage and superstition be carved away from Buddhism as a religion so that the Buddha's teachings can be clearer, but that minimalism probably doesn't deserve to be demeaned as often as it is. If dharma practice has been weighed down by centuries of hierarchies and ritual and mythology, maybe it's a good thing to carve away some dead weight. After all, we should probably not be attached to Buddhism-flavored traditions just because they're ancient, or familiar, or... well, actually, I think someone else said this better.

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." We will know when we have found a core liberative teaching of the Buddha, because it will be both true and functional. Anything that doesn't fit those criteria is probably just baggage that--yes--dharma practice is lighter without. So... to answer the original question of the thread? I think that this sort of Buddhist practice is becoming easier to find and is getting taken more seriously, but I hardly think it's new. On the contrary, I feel like this approach to knowledge, growth, and understanding is what has kept the core of dharma practice strong even as people over the ages have hung superstition and all other kinds of nonsense all over it.

03-31-2011, 06:58 AM	#7
yWleIJm4 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 441 Senior Member	2. Buddhism in the modern world must come under the scrutiny of modern science. People ask questions about rebirth and so forth in ways that may not have previously occurred. Yes. Yes yes yes. I think the new approach is to go back to what the Buddha taught. It's to try and separate "Buddhism" from "the Buddha's Dharma/Dhamma" in an effort to actualize the true meaning of his teachings in an effective way. Agreed. I also think it does this a great injustice to refer to it as "Buddhism lite," as fojiao2 did and as some others do. This is a term I've seen used a lot to refer to whatever this thing is that modern people do, and from what I've seen, it seems to be a favorite term for demeaning the dharma practice of people who don't believe in magical dragon realms or reincarnation or ghosts or gods or demons or luck. I'm not intending to accuse fojiao2 or using the term this way, but rather intending to bring up where and how else it seems to be used because I was reminded of it. The thing referred to by many as "dharma lite" certainly requires that a lot of cultural baggage and superstition be carved away from Buddhism as a religion so that the Buddha's teachings can be clearer, but that minimalism probably doesn't deserve to be demeaned as often as it is. If dharma practice has been weighed down by centuries of hierarchies and ritual and mythology, maybe it's a good thing to carve away some dead weight. After all, we should probably not be attached to Buddhism-flavored traditions just because they're ancient, or familiar, or... well, actually, I think someone else said this better. "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." We will know when we have found a core liberative teaching of the Buddha, because it will be both true and functional. Anything that doesn't fit those criteria is probably just baggage that--yes--dharma practice is lighter without. So... to answer the original question of the thread? I think that this sort of Buddhist practice is becoming easier to find and is getting taken more seriously, but I hardly think it's new. On the contrary, I feel like this approach to knowledge, growth, and understanding is what has kept the core of dharma practice strong even as people over the ages have hung superstition and all other kinds of nonsense all over it.
	Quote