There’s been a few discussions around the blogsphere about The Real Buddhism and Dharma. TMcG, is a “middle way kinda girl”, and is for a “Buddhism more palatable for th(os)e ‘raised on’ MTV/McDonald’s/New Coke”.(The Other) Urban Monk, has “no interest in revamping Zen practice for the urban world.” Here I add my reply to (The Other) Urban Monk, siding with TMcG, quoting John Stuart Mill, Dogen, and Daido Roshi.
Daido Roshi highlights Dogen’s True Dharma Eye. Case 47, speaking of context, “All masters throughout time have always looked to guiding and aiding all living beings. They would set up their shops according to their capacities, and in response to the imperative of time, place, position, and degree.”. It’s in this sentiment that I find my middle way.
(The Other) Urban Monk mentions not revamping Zen, “It was perfect when the Buddha taught it, it was perfect when Bodhidharma taught it, it was perfect when Dogen taught it, and it’s perfect when it’s taught today.”. What
(The Other) Urban Monk has missed, is that Buddhism/Zen has always followed the rules of time, place, position, and degree.
Buddhism Moves, It’s Progressive
The underlying truth is that there no single Buddhism. Dharma is unchanged, but the forms it takes always changes. Buddhism is not stuck in 2500BCE. It has moved many cultures over many periods of time;-
Chinese/Ch’an Buddhism, brought from India by Bodhidharma in the 6th century is different to that from India.
Japanese/Zen Buddhism, brought from China by Dogen in the 12th century is different to that from China.
Tibetan/Vajrayana Buddhism, is totally different to all other 3, but is based in the same core, adapted to the local culture around the 14th century.
If Buddhism were stuck in 2500BC, practices that were relevant for India back then, now, would stop an over 50% of the population from joining. As recent as 1996, there’s been questions about ordination of females in the oldest school of Buddhism, Theravadan. The idea of a difference between male and female is a man-made construct(emphasis mine), outside of Dharma, but was relevant in that culture and time.
Modern Day Kannon and Buddhism
Dogen’s Kannon fascicle questions us on how Kannon uses her 10,000 hands and eyes. Back in 2500BCE, she would carry scrolls, wear sandals, and use word of mouth. I believe Kannon has stayed relevant. She has not died out, she has progressed through the times. She’s on TV, and Radio, She uses the Internet, She has Websites and Podcasts. Kannon drives cars, flies planes, she is truly global and universal. She’s more connected now, in the modern, in the current age than she has ever been before.
Escaping Dogma and Rituals
If Buddhism were to stop being relevant, if it’s no longer questioned, it risks becoming nothing but rights and rituals. It risks falling into forms and dogma. Quoting John Stuart Mill;
the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct; the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.
I see there can be no fixed or Real Buddhism, as like life, it’s constantly changing. It’s the acknowledgement of this constant change that is required to keep the Dharma sustained. It’s the moving with time, place, position, and degree. It’s using the modern hands of Kannon that not only allow us to keep the Dharma sustained, but allow us, in this time with these tools, for the first time ever, to allow the Dharma to reach an audience previously unavailable to the rest of time. We are in a position to turn the Dharma Wheel, not only sustaining it, but allowing it to grow and flourish into the world again.
(photo)
Related posts:-
Popularity: 8%
Nothing much left to say. I agree.
not very informative. the essence of buddhism is the victory over affliction and getting caught up in the moment.
there is something immediate about our responses to outer circumstances, wich in itself holds the cause of alot of our afflictive emotion (wich according to tibetan buddhism is the source of confusion and cynicism).
so is there a way to beat negativity, confusion and suffering, without being tempted or lured by it? either to cause harm (mainly to our selves) or loose composure?
well, according to the buddha, there is. the solution as it is said is to guard your mind from affliction, any way possible, and remember that kindness and serenity bear other more precious gifts than short temper and dominance.
if the goal is cessation, kindness truly is the way to strive. this is why compassion and love is so important.
without them, one might fall into a imaginary trap of cynicism and desparity, without any feeling of understanding or calmness.
so what to do? well, like jesus said, turn the other cheek, and rather work on your own emotional stability, sincerely. and ask yourself, is there a way to reduce, avoid or get rid of negativity? is kindness in any way related? or love? or understanding?
what they say, is that our minds are made to understand one and another, if affcliction arises, such an understanding is impossible, and the outcome must be aggravation and conflict. leading to further loss of happiness (i.e. compassion and kindness)
the truth of this is eternal.
so dont get lost with BAD RELIGION! u know, the type that tells you to kill you ego or experience endless amounts of despair, in ORDER to somehow be enlightened.
enlightenment is nothing more than the cultivation of kindness and compassion in every aspect of life, with the goal of eradicating negativity all together, a feat wich buddha said was possible.
being mean is only dumb, in the long run. reacting uncontrollably to dumb behaviour will turn you into a moron.
when argumenting with someone stupid, your bound to loose, due to their experience in the field.
=) dont let all the commotion sweep you off your fett, victory over negativity is somewhere.
Wade,
This is an area which is really tricky. While I agree that the dharma is one thing and the packaging or presentation is another, the modifications which have occurred, especially in recent times, amount to the creation of a new religion.
There are certain eternal verities, about how the universe works, about how the human psyche works, which do not change. This is the essence of Buddha’s teachings. There have been those who present Buddha’s teachings as they wish they were, rather than how they are.
Thanissaro Bhikkhu phrased it well when he said, “Study after study has shown that mainstream Buddhism, both lay and monastic, has adapted itself thoroughly to the various societies into which it has been introduced—so thoroughly that the original teachings seem in some cases to have been completely distorted. From the earliest centuries of the tradition on up to the present, groups who feel inspired by the Buddha’s teachings, but who prefer to adapt those teachings to their own ends rather than adapting themselves to the teachings, have engaged in creating what might be called designer Buddhism. This accounts for the wide differences we find when we compare, say, Japanese Buddhism, Tibetan, and Thai. (empasis is mine.)
So a thorough grounding in the essence of Dharma is necessary before sensible adaptations to the presentation are done.
We always seek to envelope the spiritual in some sort of intellectual construct because it makes us more comfortable to do so. But in my opinion it does not matter much. The spiritual is found in a moment and it can be found anywhere. And in anyone.
It flies between the thoughts and words.
To remain alive any tradition (like any organism) must remain in relationship to its environment.
I grew up in fundamentalist christianity (in my city, Sydney, Australia some Anglicans are currently debating the ordination of women) and I’ve trained in acupuncture (in the blogosphere there is debate at the moment about how much the current teaching should rely on the original texts). This discussion applies to any tradition.
The question I think is the one raised by ReddyK – what is the essence of the tradition? Discussion of this should ensure that the tradition is kept alive.
In my experience the way forward is not to argue methods or system (those on both sides of any issue can usually use the same method or system).
Which leads me to ask you Wade: what is the essence of the dhama for you?
@bushidozen, thank you
@Jihn, Interesting comments. I’m not sure that they are inline with the theme of this post. Interesting regardless, however. “Victory over negativity”, that’s a dangerous attitude. There’s is nothing to beat. Without negativity, there can be no positive. Inside negativity, there is positivity. Form is emptyness, emptyness is form. Trying to victor over, means there’s always something against something else. There’s always a separation of the whole. Thanks again for your comments.
@ReddyK, In total agreement with you, thanks for showing a different view in the same vein of TMcG’s and mine.
@David, Agree with you. Thanks for the reminder of that which is between thoughts and words. The space between, and developing awareness, and coming from that place. Yummy.
@Evan, I’m with you too, that these are living traditions, discussion and debate are healthy parts of keeping it relevant. To me the essence of any authentic tradition is a pointing to that which is beyond, focused on the present, personal, local, and global. The essence of dharma? The globe spins, connected to something larger, it wobbles, hanging by string it is.
Thank you all for a lively discussion. I’m hoping to get (The Other) Urban Monk [Albert is The Urban Monk.net] in here too. I’ve sent him the thread, here’s hoping he views and replies.
May all beings be blessed by the Dharma.
Gassho,
Wade
Nice discussion here.
I guess there are 2 parts to this issue that has to be clearly defined.
1) The Dharma should always remain and should not be altered.
2) The presentation or packaging whatever you called it are means of spreading the Dharma. These means changes from time to time inorder to effectively spread the dharma.
Rather than altering the teachings and distorting it totally, the dharma should NOT be adapting to the world but rather it is the ways or means of spreading and communicating the dharma that is adapting and changing.
Dharma should not get dumber but smarter
Just as good karma makes you calmer . . .
Everything changes – even everything changing . . .
When the next Buddha comes as an enlightened gender
independent AI we will all be with the program . . .
I absolutely agree with you.
I think learning to transcend inclinations to compare and judge are part of the process. Lobster recognizes the impermanence in everything. The question is, do we really get what this is communicating to our egos and our souls?
@Life Reflection, Great summary of what’s going on here. Totally agree with you on both points, can’t say anything more, you nailed it very clearly.
@Lobster, Great points here. Daido Roshi speaks of the linage of teachers only succeeding if the student is beyond the teacher. If the student only matches the teacher, the linage has not continued/succeeded. Interesting comment about AI as Maitreya. Sounds very familiar of Terence McKenna, have a read if not familiar…
@James, Thanks, Gassho.
@Liara Covert, Totally agree. To compare and judge are relative, human concepts. A tree by itself, is a tree, yet when we place another on next to it, we start judging it’s height/color etc.. We lose objectivity when we have a pair. Hopefully this communication goes beyond the ego and souls.
May all beings be happy.
Gassho,
Wade
A raft is a raft, whatever its construction. To argue about its design is fruitless. The question is “does it float?”