DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Is modern "Buddhism" moving away from the teachings of the Buddha ?

**pE71J5Sw** · 11-29-2010, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by Glow One huge stumbling block for traditional Buddhism is its monastic focus. It's worth noting that the institution of monasticism in countries where Buddhism survives has typically cut off from the Dhamma from laypersons. Buddhism for the majority of the people in these countries amounts only to devotional practices and paranormal beliefs, with very little knowledge or application of the psychological and social insights of the Buddha of the Pali canon. Most people in the West cannot become and are not interested in becoming monks or nuns. How, then, do we reevaluate Buddhism for our modern-day lay lives? This is one of the questions Batchelor and his wife Martine are actually asking in their work. (For the record, I think Batchelor's newest book, Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist does a better job of pointing at an answer than Buddhism Without Beliefs.)

I disagree that the monastic focus is a stumbling block for Buddhism -its not here in the UK, at any rate. I've just spent the day at a Theravada Forest tradition monastery and listened to a 2hr talk given by the Abbot Ajahn Sumedho to the ordained and lay community. Devotional practices and paranormal beliefs weren't even mentioned. There were a number of references to suttas in the Pali Canon, the Four Noble truths were mentioned, Dependent Origination, and lots of advice for meditation, mindfulness and day to day living.

I think its a mistake to mistrust all things that are connected with tradition and to want to just throw them out. For me it would be a great tragedy if the only Buddhist 'teachers' available were people like Stephen Batchelor.

I've also encountered several westerners interested in ordaining in both the Theravada and Tibetan Buddhist traditions in this country both of which have active monastic communities.
So this post is several months old, and I missed your reply, but I wanted to clarify a few points. The present manifestation of the Thai forest tradition in the U.K. is a relatively novel phenomenon. It actually ought to be called the "Thai forest revival." In fact, it evolved in the 20th century out of the direct result of people who, like Stephen Batchelor, were interested in reviving a practice of Buddhism that relied on direct experience of the transformative psychology and personal interaction with the historical Pali texts. The Thai forest tradition of Ajahn Maha Bua and Ajahn Chah, thus, was a sort of "modernist" movement itself. It was an anomaly that was not representative of other contemporary Theravadin communities in Thailand or abroad.

In fact, in the case of the Sri Lankans (to whom we owe quite a lot in terms of our knowledge of Pali manuscripts), it was thanks largely to the efforts of two Westerners that Buddhism and a meditation tradition still exists in that country at all: Colonel Henry Steel Olcott and Helena Blavatsky who reinvigorated Buddhism there after years of Colonial oppression. The man who revived the meditation tradition (which had fallen out of favor in the Sri Lankan monastic community) in Sri Lanka and India was a sort of protege of theirs: Anagarika Dharmapala. His return to the Pali texts and the resurrection of the contemplative practices gleaned therefrom are a direct result of Olcott and Blavatsky's exhortation to simply return to the original texts themselves (which, again, was anomalous to the contemporary Buddhist culture). From what we can tell, until fairly recently, laypeople in Theravadan countries (not so sure about Zen or Vajrayana) did not meditate and had no interest in it, certainly not with an eye for the deep shift in the psyche that those familiar with the Pali texts know it has the potential to catalyze.

And, of course, we have people like Buddhadasa Bhikku or Mahasi Sayadaw, et al. who became distrustful with their own contemporary "traditional" culture and established "traditions" of their own. These traditions actually reflected a return to the historical Buddha's teaching rather than a departure from it. People like Batchelor or Gombrich are simply the latest in a chain of reevaluations of the prevailing Buddhist culture. In other words, "modern Buddhism" oftentimes signifies a return to early Buddhism, or at least a practice that more closely resembles what we can presently know of early Buddhism.

Likewise, the modern "access to insight" movement whereby laypeople everywhere have access to the Pali texts is unprecedented, and results from the "modernist" approach to Buddhism spearheaded by the Thai forest revival and the expectations for such a thing by Westerners like Ajahn Sumedho, Bhikku Bodhi, Jack Kornfield and Thanissaro Bhikku. I'm not sure we would even have English translations of the Pali texts if the Christian Protestant Reformation hadn't made personal exposure to the firsthand sources of a religion so intrinsic to spiritual study in the West. That sort of unprecedented access really didn't exist in Asia at all until recently. In fact, guess where the Sri Lankan Walpola Rahula (author of What the Buddha Taught) studied the Pali canon in depth?: the Sorbonne in Paris. Comprehensive scriptural study of the sort we modern Westerners have become used to is a modern innovation.

I'm not certainly not saying Batchelor, et al. should be the only teachers and that we should look to their work uncritically and abandon all Asian traditions in favor of modern ones. I am simply saying that blindly vilifying modernism and exalting so-called tradition is short-sighted, because Batchelor and other modern Buddhists are just doing the selfsame things that people (some of whom, like Ajahn Chah, have even been Asian) have always been doing in good faith efforts to understand what Buddhism really means for us as individuals. I always get the feeling that qualms of this sort are indicative of a sort of knee-jerk misoneism, rather than an honest understanding and evaluation of Buddhism in its proper historical, social, and personal contexts respectively.

Yeesh, that got long. Sorry for being so garrulous.

11-29-2010, 07:21 AM	#32
pE71J5Sw Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 433 Senior Member	Originally Posted by Glow One huge stumbling block for traditional Buddhism is its monastic focus. It's worth noting that the institution of monasticism in countries where Buddhism survives has typically cut off from the Dhamma from laypersons. Buddhism for the majority of the people in these countries amounts only to devotional practices and paranormal beliefs, with very little knowledge or application of the psychological and social insights of the Buddha of the Pali canon. Most people in the West cannot become and are not interested in becoming monks or nuns. How, then, do we reevaluate Buddhism for our modern-day lay lives? This is one of the questions Batchelor and his wife Martine are actually asking in their work. (For the record, I think Batchelor's newest book, Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist does a better job of pointing at an answer than Buddhism Without Beliefs.) I disagree that the monastic focus is a stumbling block for Buddhism -its not here in the UK, at any rate. I've just spent the day at a Theravada Forest tradition monastery and listened to a 2hr talk given by the Abbot Ajahn Sumedho to the ordained and lay community. Devotional practices and paranormal beliefs weren't even mentioned. There were a number of references to suttas in the Pali Canon, the Four Noble truths were mentioned, Dependent Origination, and lots of advice for meditation, mindfulness and day to day living. I think its a mistake to mistrust all things that are connected with tradition and to want to just throw them out. For me it would be a great tragedy if the only Buddhist 'teachers' available were people like Stephen Batchelor. I've also encountered several westerners interested in ordaining in both the Theravada and Tibetan Buddhist traditions in this country both of which have active monastic communities. So this post is several months old, and I missed your reply, but I wanted to clarify a few points. The present manifestation of the Thai forest tradition in the U.K. is a relatively novel phenomenon. It actually ought to be called the "Thai forest revival." In fact, it evolved in the 20th century out of the direct result of people who, like Stephen Batchelor, were interested in reviving a practice of Buddhism that relied on direct experience of the transformative psychology and personal interaction with the historical Pali texts. The Thai forest tradition of Ajahn Maha Bua and Ajahn Chah, thus, was a sort of "modernist" movement itself. It was an anomaly that was not representative of other contemporary Theravadin communities in Thailand or abroad. In fact, in the case of the Sri Lankans (to whom we owe quite a lot in terms of our knowledge of Pali manuscripts), it was thanks largely to the efforts of two Westerners that Buddhism and a meditation tradition still exists in that country at all: Colonel Henry Steel Olcott and Helena Blavatsky who reinvigorated Buddhism there after years of Colonial oppression. The man who revived the meditation tradition (which had fallen out of favor in the Sri Lankan monastic community) in Sri Lanka and India was a sort of protege of theirs: Anagarika Dharmapala. His return to the Pali texts and the resurrection of the contemplative practices gleaned therefrom are a direct result of Olcott and Blavatsky's exhortation to simply return to the original texts themselves (which, again, was anomalous to the contemporary Buddhist culture). From what we can tell, until fairly recently, laypeople in Theravadan countries (not so sure about Zen or Vajrayana) did not meditate and had no interest in it, certainly not with an eye for the deep shift in the psyche that those familiar with the Pali texts know it has the potential to catalyze. And, of course, we have people like Buddhadasa Bhikku or Mahasi Sayadaw, et al. who became distrustful with their own contemporary "traditional" culture and established "traditions" of their own. These traditions actually reflected a return to the historical Buddha's teaching rather than a departure from it. People like Batchelor or Gombrich are simply the latest in a chain of reevaluations of the prevailing Buddhist culture. In other words, "modern Buddhism" oftentimes signifies a return to early Buddhism, or at least a practice that more closely resembles what we can presently know of early Buddhism. Likewise, the modern "access to insight" movement whereby laypeople everywhere have access to the Pali texts is unprecedented, and results from the "modernist" approach to Buddhism spearheaded by the Thai forest revival and the expectations for such a thing by Westerners like Ajahn Sumedho, Bhikku Bodhi, Jack Kornfield and Thanissaro Bhikku. I'm not sure we would even have English translations of the Pali texts if the Christian Protestant Reformation hadn't made personal exposure to the firsthand sources of a religion so intrinsic to spiritual study in the West. That sort of unprecedented access really didn't exist in Asia at all until recently. In fact, guess where the Sri Lankan Walpola Rahula (author of What the Buddha Taught) studied the Pali canon in depth?: the Sorbonne in Paris. Comprehensive scriptural study of the sort we modern Westerners have become used to is a modern innovation. I'm not certainly not saying Batchelor, et al. should be the only teachers and that we should look to their work uncritically and abandon all Asian traditions in favor of modern ones. I am simply saying that blindly vilifying modernism and exalting so-called tradition is short-sighted, because Batchelor and other modern Buddhists are just doing the selfsame things that people (some of whom, like Ajahn Chah, have even been Asian) have always been doing in good faith efforts to understand what Buddhism really means for us as individuals. I always get the feeling that qualms of this sort are indicative of a sort of knee-jerk misoneism, rather than an honest understanding and evaluation of Buddhism in its proper historical, social, and personal contexts respectively. Yeesh, that got long. Sorry for being so garrulous.
	Quote