The Problem Of Modern Buddhism
 

The Problem of Modern Buddhism (11 minutes)




Bhante Punnaji - The problem of modern Buddhism - O Problema do Budismo Moderno


ANY COMMENTS?



.

I would suggest that the "Problem" with Buddhism to day is that Westerners,and more and more Asian's that we want everything instantly.
With this attitude it's not too surprising that we don't have time to question our beliefs.
The Suttas in translation are available to anyone,and to say that the printed word and the degregation of the language is a problem is only a so if we cling to the printed word and don't get behind the language.

Very true Frank. We all know that. We all want everything just given. We find really challenging to do our own work. We are, sometimes, like kids that are needed to be told what to do. It doesn't matters if is a guru, a tradition or the original scripture. To get behind the lenguage needs a lot of work to be done by ourselves.

I have ever thought that the teachings of the historical Buddha are like a recipe or learning to cook. A huge amount of practice is needed.

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

From Bhante Punajji speech, I have found this quotes usefull so to comment them:

8'26'': "... and every person has to discover this." (about the real teaching of the Buddha).

8'41'': "...you can not just take it from another person." (talking about the experience from the teachings).

8'56'': "...according to your own level of maturity in your thinking you will be able to understand the teaching of the Buddha."

This three quotes make me ask this question:

How much it is needed an interpretation of the teachings from a given tradition?

I have ever been a little bit reluctant to have confidence at interpretations. An interpretation is very inspiring and seems to make things and understandings easier but in my personal experience, any time I have follow an interpretation, from the tradition I chose or from other traditions, I have always get in trouble. That has never worked well. I get frustrated following interpretations. For example, this happend with Thich interpretations and his given recipes and other interpretations like the ones given by the Dalai Lama, etc.

Being here, I stared to look into the original teachings of the historical Buddha and I found my self alone with my own skills, maturing, by experience, the teaching I am working with. I have found this much more real and fulfilling but even more difficult that just being inspired by a given interpretation. I think we just full ourselves when we are following blindly an interpretation. In my experience that has lead me to nowhere.

Just some reflections...

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

That's very much my case too Kaarine. Certainly, I wouldn't consider closing myself off to any teachings, merely because I was a "member" of another tradition (which I'm not anymore). That's just the death of genuine experience. I know that many would disagree with me there but it's the only way I have found in which I can be a true witness to my own experience. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/hands.gif

One of the problems with buddism today is that buddhist of old had followed their Buddhist traditions as they were, set out in stone,where as today ,the modern follower of Buddhism will question more and look to all the other traditions,to find the the happy medium and in this way develop his meaning of his faith.

Not saying that this is "absolute truth" or anything, but from my perspective at this moment, I'd say that modern Buddhism has shifted away from direct, unmediated experience to faith in the Buddha, suttas, one's teacher, one's lineage, etc. The Buddha's teachings can never teach us as much as our own senses could, if we could just get away from the addiction to teachers. The teachings seem to me to be designed to make themselves obsolete, superfluous, once we've got the point. Just my musings... ^^

I go with this FBM. Why? Because experience. When I read an interpretation of somebody... to say Dalai Lama or Thich, or some of the Ajahn's at the end I am, one of two things, or being influenced by a personal experience of a teaching which sets apart from direct experience or I can not grow from the words of a teacher.

In Zen, most of the teishos I have attended are about the discipline in our life about many topics like our diet, about skills for zazen and the rest is thorugh silent learning. Silent learning is called Negemisho. We are about the Four Noble Truths found at the Pali. We read them, or the Roshi reads them slowly, letting set in our minds and after that we sit so to silence the mind. Slowly life events will reveal us the teaching and we just share that findings in a very informal way. But we can not deny the importance to listen some explorations about the teachings that can bring light to our understanding.

I think a teacher is important and the teachings too... The idea is not to get unskillfully attached to them and keep the practice alive. Here and at the dojo I have found some explorations and explanations that have made clear the suttas and have let me advance more in the practice. So I think there is no need to deify them nor negate them (teachers and teachings).

Really? WOW! (that is a very interesting statement!)

Actually, relying on books by teachers is not the same thing as actually learning directly from a great teacher, and by that I mean one who has devoted his or her whole life to study and practice, and has learned from great teachers, and who transmits the teachings clearly without distorting them. I have found on many occasions that teachers offer a greater depth of understanding things that I read in books and thought I knew fully. This applies not only to Buddha's teachings, but to many things.

Absolutely!

I think there are some issues here... how can one know if a teacher teaches clearly without distorting the teaching if we relay in the teacher more than in the teaching, let's say, a Pali teaching?

Some guidelines to this aspect of the practice are in the speech of Bhante Punajji given by Aloka in the opening post. Again the speech underlines some issues that are shared with the way learning is understood, at least in Soto Zen tradition.

I have seen a difference between Zen and, for example, Tibetan. Tibetan tradition, because of its culture, gives a huge importance to the guru and in some way it demands a kind of devotion and loyalty to its figure. Zen understands different the relationship of a teacher and the one who is being taught. It is less devotional and there is a constant awareness about not being in dependence to the teacher. In this sense, Zen way of teaching is similar to the elements given in Bhante speech.

There are countless Zen stories about this important aspect of the tradition:

One Note of Zen,

After Kakua visited the emperor he disappeared and no one knew what became of him. He was the first Japanese to study Zen in China, but since he showed nothing of it, save one note, he is not remembered for having brought Zen into his country.

Kakua visited China and accepted the true teaching. He did not travel while he was there. Meditating constantly, he lived on a remote part of a mountain. Whenever people found him and asked him to preach he would say a few words and then move to another part of the mountain where he could be found less easily.

The emperor heard about Kakua when he returned to Japan and asked him to preach Zen for his edification and that for his subjects.

Kakua stood before the emperor in silence. He then produced a flute from the folds of his robe, and blew one short note. Bowing politely, he disappeared.

Paul Reps,
Zen Flesh, Zen Bones. This do not mean there should not be neither teachers nor teachings. They are needed. Some people would be really lucky having a great teacher others maybe will not... but at the end, as Bhante Punnaji says, we are the only one responsible of discovering the teaching of the Buddha. I really don't know if the teacher we have at the dojo is the very best teacher of all the Soto Zen Roshis, but what is important is that there is him and I try to learn as much as I can from his meditation skills.

Also I think that traditions are about temper. Some people are about relying highly in a teacher why others don't. I think there is not a final word about this.

Regarding the subject of teachers, I have just revived the topic "Teachers are prison" in the Beyond Belief forum, if anyone's interested.

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/grin.gif

How would you know that a teacher was distorting the teachings unless you already knew what the undistorted teachings were?

The point I was trying to make was that a lot of people get so used to having a teacher or a tradition that they can't imagine being in a state in which they no longer have to follow, trust or believe. They identify themselves with the teacher or tradition. That's self-limiting, it seems. It's like enjoying the ride on the raft so much that you refuse to get off it even when you're at the far bank. Of course, I could be wrong, as always.

Not at all FBM; I think you are adressing a very important issue that is veiled, again, by what is just told or has been told.

One thing that experience has taught me is that I could always be wrong. Even about that, I suppose. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

Your opinion could be wrong as any other opinion but not to what it is being pointed; but well, maybe I am being wrong too... http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/tongue.gif

These days, I'm growing fonder and fonder of the answer "Your guess is as good as mine." :)

I'm not really convinced that there is actually a problem with modern Buddhism. I think it was Ajahn Chah who once said something along the lines of "If it were supposed to be different, it would be."

had to watch on Youtube cuz the link here said it couldn't play it anymore...it's merely more canonical positivism...Buddhism (a word, that to my knowledge, itself does not appear in the Pali Canon) is like a living organism, and therefore involves all the messiness, decay and debris all organisms are subject to (or, if you prefer, Buddhism is itself inconstant, stressful, and not-self)

True Anon, for any sort of Buddh-"ism". http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

This was true for myself for many years until I began to have strong feelings that I needed to move on, and that I was no longer learning anything new or beneficial.

One can also get attached to what one's told about the teachers credentials too. Then of course, if one criticises anything, one is likely to be told that one hasn't got "pure view".

Letting all that go and investigating for myself, reading some of the suttas in the Pali Canon and then eventually listening to and talking to a teacher from a completely different tradition felt almost liberating !

I'm grateful for what I did learn originally though, and for some insights gained through practice.

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/hands.gif

Thanks for quoting this Aloka-D. Re-reading it I realized I'm experiencing the "other side" of it: i've got so used to NOT having a teacher or being part of a tradition I've a hard time imagining being in a state where I no longer have to rely solely on myself...i've experienced that to be "self-limiting" too...

Of course, I could be wrong, as always. You always could be wrong or just always wrong? http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif