[hexniks]

This is where Ajahn Brahm's view is similar to a return to the Dark Ages, where priests ruled over society. What is sad is the impression of disempowering laity & creating dependence on monks.

What is absurd about AB's view is, in reality, there are very few monks in the Western cities. For example, in Sydney, Australia's largest city, 7 years ago, there were probably two or three Western monks in the whole city.

If the laity in the big cities are not going to consider themselves as Sangha then what will they regard as Sangha? Some monks living in the forest that regard city life is unworthy?

Sangha, in its essense, represents 'practise'. When people come together & sit together in meditation, that is Sangha.

Hi Element,

I didn't get this impression reading the article. I thought AB's point was that moving away from recognised traditional teachings and to an independant, Western, modernised version of Buddhism can be dangerous if people think that modern = better.

On the other hand, there are lots of modern Western teachers (Joseph Goldstein, Jack Kornfield, Sharon Salzberg, Gil Fronsdal, etc.) who respect and draw on traditional teachings and put them in a modern context.

To be honest, I'm completely ignorant to the current state of Buddhism in Australia, can you expand on your view Element?