New Buddhist Path - INTRODUCTION: In Quest of a Modern Buddhism

[Byrne]

For Buddhism to thrive in the west it will continue to adapt to the needs of people just like it always has. But no one gets to control the larger narrative of how that will take place. As Buddhists our duty is to earnestly seek guidance in the three treasures. We will make mistakes. We will get caught up in our own self centered ideas. Some people will use Buddhism for nefarious purposes. If we do our best to correct errors the future looks bright. If we get bogged down in a self centered desire to establish a new Buddhism we are more likely to go astray.

Personally, I believe that what is most important is that we honor and respect traditions so long as they embrace the three jewels and foster an environment where Buddhist teachings are open to absolutely anyone who wishes to learn regardless of their personal circumstance.

Gassho

Sat Today

[RonanJH]

A fantastic book.

I grew up in a tradition that has mostly become hostile to science, at least when it was seen to challenge certain literalist readings of scripture. I now teach the Bible in an academic setting and the first thing we do is discuss fundamentalist hermeneutics. It's striking that literalist, anti-science approaches are a relatively new phenomenon in Christianity. Enlightenment rationality was applied to the Bible as if its teachings and myths represented scientific fact (this is the way Kant approached philosophy -- as if it were a branch of Newtonian physics). St. Augustine and others would not have recognised this.

Anyway, that's my background and is what I had in mind as I contemplated Jundo's question:

- Should Buddhism not change in some ways, no matter what science discovers or modern values change?

I would say that in general, religion should not chase after science too eagerly. I fully accept the scientific worldview and my values are fairly progressive. However, if Buddhism is only "true" in some sense because it relates well to modern cosmology or psychology it will only be true for as long as these things are also true. Of course, that's not quite what the question is asking but it's what came to mind. I would say that of course Buddhism should change or not change in dialogue with the totality of the human experience, science being one such factor.

#ST

[Kaisho]

- Is the modern world changing Buddhism? Is that good? Not good in some ways?

- Is Buddhism changing the modern world? Is that good? Not good in some ways?

- Does Buddhism need to change even more in the face of modern society, scientific discoveries and the like?

- Should Buddhism not change in some ways, no matter what science discovers or modern values change?

I haven't read anything this scholarly since my days in college so it has been refreshing to dig into this book. Also please Pardon the grammar and spelling as my phone is trying to vex me.

1) It is changing to meet the needs of modern people. We are modern people doing ancient, though updated, practices. If we were hermits in a cave might be different but we have other influences that allow us to distill the practice to something that suits our needs. This is good in that it presents the material in more conventional ways with updated, clear language and accessible teachings.

2) No. Definitely not. I can see how academics might find meditation techniques interesting but the same patterns flow. Arguments, war, etc. This is not a good thing because people lean on violence and tribalism to other people and dredge up reoccurring grievances.

3)yes,I would say that change is necessary to survive in the West. Changing to meet the needs of the society it interacts with has been a strong trait for Buddhism but science has much to give to the world and that should be embraced.

4) in certain areas it is good to maintain a traditional view. Preserving some traditions allows for a connection to the historical roots of the practice.


Sent from my LGLS675 using Tapatalk

[Jundo]

Hey Guys,

Feel free to talk among yourselves here too, and comment on each others' comments, if you want. Visualize that we are all sitting in a circle with coffee and donuts (mmmm, Donuts!) at the local book store (those are becoming more and more imaginary too!). Everyone says their piece if they wish, but you can also ask each other questions or talk of impressions and insights from other members' words if you want.

However, okay not to as well, and just lay back and listen too. You can just stay for the coffee and donuts too, all free.

Gassho, J

SatToday

(IN MODERATION!)

[Mp]

the coffee and donuts too, all free.

OK, I am so in!!!

Gassho
Shingen

s@today #with donut crumbs on my face

[Kaisho]

An aside, before I comment. The introduction in my book is pages 1-7; you say it's pages 1-9. The book has 164 pages, through the end of the index. Does that correspond to your edition, Jundo? I'm just wondering if there are two editions, and the page numbers you mention may be out of sync.

Without answering your questions directly, I think the difference we're facing now, as compared to when Buddhism spread to other countries, is the fact that so many Buddhisms have come to the west. It's not just, say, Indian Buddhism going to Tibet or China, it's all the different Buddhisms coming to the west, and vying for preeminence. Tibetan Buddhism has an edge, because of the Dalai Lama, but Zen has been here a bit longer, and is better established in the world of art and music. So we can no longer talk about a single Buddhism, but we have to consider the varied traditions and practices of many variants.

It's no secret that I'm a believer in the need for a more secular Buddhism, and, to address your fourth question, I think the biggest change we'll see is a new type of Buddhism that drops many of the trappings of tradition. I don't think this has anything to do with what science discovers - while neuroscientists have closely examined meditation, I'm not convinced that really has anything to do with Buddhism as such.

I think the main change has already happened, of course: that's the way lay people have access to the practice, something that was rare in the many countries where Buddhism flourished. And that alone is changing Buddhism from a top-down religion to a more secular practice. (Though I shudder when I read Loy saying "If the Buddhist path is psychological therapy..." I think that's something that is perverting Buddhism from its true meaning.)

Gassho,

Kirk

#Sat

Hey Kirk. I found your post intriguing and it brought a few questions to mind.
I find the concept of secular Buddhism interesting, but I am curious as to what that practice would look like? Also would that practice modernize easier than something steeped in the cultural and religious context that lineage traditions tend to be? And is it really separate?

Gassho
Chelsea
Sat2day



Sent from my LGLS675 using Tapatalk

[Jakuden]

I felt the same twinge. I have heard Shakyamuni described as a "radical psychologist" though, and it's not wrong. Incomplete, maybe.

Gassho, Zenmei
#sat

I read the above statement as part of an explanation of how those interpretations of Buddhism really are self-centered and end up reinforcing suffering, rather than alleviating it. Loy goes on to say that what is needed today is the realization that we are not separate from others.

I am still processing others' comments and answers here, but the niggling disturbance in the force for me overall is how arbitrary a belief system can seem. I think? that we practice the way we do because we are drawn to what we feel is a great common Truth. We can taste it, touch it with Zazen. But then we adorn it with all the trappings we find necessary and appropriate based on our individual or collective fancy. Then we talk about how this thing we created has been/should be adapted to serve different times and cultures. So I guess I agree that there is some ultimate, permanent Truth that we all want to touch, but perhaps that ultimate Truth is that nothing is permanent!

And that is the "razor's edge" I think Loy is pointing out, when he says we can sympathize with one side or the other but when we use one to interrogate another, it shakes us up. Can we toss out the trappings of Eastern Buddhism without turning it into another Western self-help method or goal-oriented search for enlightenment? Where is the real relevance of the Dharma for us today?

Gassho
Jakuden
SatToday


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Enjaku]

My head's a big mess right now, so I don't feel like commenting or interacting too much. I just wanted to say I'm enjoying the book so far and thank you all for your comments. Sitting quietly in the corner of this thread with coffee and donuts is a nice place for me to be. Thank you for your practice.
Gassho,
Enjaku
Sat

[RonanJH]

Can we toss out the trappings of Eastern Buddhism without turning it into another Western self-help method or goal-oriented search for enlightenment? Where is the real relevance of the Dharma for us today?

There is this danger, isn't there, of a kind of western chauvinism, whereby Eastern Buddhism might be held to be primitive or unenlightened. I am happy that Loy seems interested in discussing this.



Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

[Ryumon]

I find the concept of secular Buddhism interesting, but I am curious as to what that practice would look like? Also would that practice modernize easier than something steeped in the cultural and religious context that lineage traditions tend to be? And is it really separate?

Well that's the real question, isn't it. Forgive me if this is a bit long, but this is a topic that's close to my heart.

I think? that we practice the way we do because we are drawn to what we feel is a great common Truth. We can taste it, touch it with Zazen.

First, there is a small but influential movement of people trying to make a secular dharma. Stephen Batchelor is the most prominent, but if you look around, you can see similar approaches in a number of younger Zen teachers. This is more common in Zen, because Zen tends to be the type of Buddhism that has the fewest trappings. Read Brad Warner's books, or some of the other younger Zen teachers, and you'll see that the reverence for tradition takes second place to a search for truth.

You can also see that in a lineage such as that of Thich Nhat Hanh. I've never practiced in any of those centers, but from reading his books, and reading about Plum Village, it seems that his is a Zen stripped of many of the trappings and that seeks to find a more socially-focused truth.

Jundo has said many times that he is - and I'm paraphrasing - agnostic about rebirth. And that's probably the most esoteric aspect of Zen, when you think about it. If you can ignore rebirth, and the idea of karma as crossing kalpas, then Zen as we practice it here is very simple. (I do believe in karma, but in a more immediate manner, that our actions do have consequences, just not in having us reborn as a slug a few eons down the road.)

Personally, I don't consider Zen a religion, and I'm not a fan of the rituals, the chanting, etc. (This is part of why, even though I've been a part of Treeleaf, on and off, for nearly ten years, I haven't take Jukai. More on that another time, however...) I have no altar in my home, and have no intention of making one. I'm not here to worship any being, be it the Buddha or anyone else; not even Dogen. I recognize that he was a big dude in Zen, and I can appreciate him the way I appreciate, say, William Shakespeare or Bob Dylan, but I can't pray to him.

I was surprised recently when watching a video on YouTube about Kinhin to see a Zen center where the altar had a picture of Dogen. (It was a very nice picture, by the way.) I am more interested in worshipping an idea than a person. In my office, I have an enso painting by Kaz Tanahashi, and if I were to create an altar, I'd put that on the wall above it. The idea of the enso speaks to me much more than a statue of the Buddha, or a picture of Dogen. (Though I understand that such a figure can represent an idea, but if you're worshipping the figure, you're still caught up in idolatry.)

I am still processing others' comments and answers here, but the niggling disturbance in the force for me overall is how arbitrary a belief system can seem. I think? that we practice the way we do because we are drawn to what we feel is a great common Truth. We can taste it, touch it with Zazen. But then we adorn it with all the trappings we find necessary and appropriate based on our individual or collective fancy. Then we talk about how this thing we created has been/should be adapted to serve different times and cultures. So I guess I agree that there is some ultimate, permanent Truth that we all want to touch, but perhaps that ultimate Truth is that nothing is permanent!

The dharma has taken on the trappings of different countries where it has established residence, and in each country it is radically different. Look at Tibetan Buddhism, which, aside from the teachings of the Buddha, bears no resemblance to Zen at all. Look at how different Theravada Buddhism is from both Zen and Tibetan Buddhism. Then look at the other strains of the dharma; they are all loosely united, but very different.

Preserving some traditions allows for a connection to the historical roots of the practice.

I do believe that some traditions are useful, but no country that has adopted Zen has not altered the traditions it keeps, and created new ones. And I do think that a lineage is important, the fact that we are all connected to Dogen establishes the longevity of his ideas.

There's an interesting parallel among something called "modern Stoicism." This is fairly recent, and people practice the ideas of the Stoics - Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, etc. - reading their works, abiding by a set of guiding principles, and performing some contemplative practices.

So how can there be a secular practice of Zen? There's not much to drop, honestly, it's more a question of committing to rebuilding something coherent. As Jundo has said many times - and I paraphrase again - one shouldn't through out the Buddha with the bathwater, but I think it's possible, and vital for the future of Zen in the west. After all, look at Japan; Zen is a ceremonial practice there, with a few exceptions. It has become sclerotic over time, with no real focus.

On the flip side, we see the secular mindfulness movement, which seeks to make meditation a tool for relaxation (which it is good for), and psychological transformation. While I believe the Buddha once said something to the effect that he was like a doctor (anyone know the quote?), I think the way we approach psychology now is a bit removed from what one experiences when sitting. (That's why Loy's mention of psychology instantly ruffled my feathers.)

Sorry for rambling so much, but this topic is very important to me. I haven't sat today; I had a lot of work I had to get out this morning, but I will sit soon.

Gassho,

Kirk

[Byrne]

Kirk,

What you've written resonates with me. You and I have similar perspectives and attitudes.

I think it's most important that when we learn Buddhism, we are doing our best to learn Buddhism. Not secular or non-secular Buddhism. Just Buddhism. All of us here feel deeply about these teachings and tradition. It's only natural that we would hope the wisdom of the Buddhadharma finds a comfortable place within western society. Regardless of what forms it may take here over the next few centuries primarily depends on all of us striving to uphold the three jewels to the best of our ability.

Nishijima pointed out that when we come to study Buddhism we don't actually know what it is yet. We need guidance, however perfect or imperfect it might be. Humbling ourselves before that understanding I have found to be very effective. From the Grasshut poem we studied a little while back.

"Thousands of words, Myriad interpretations.
Are only to free you from obstructions"

Buddhism isn't for the secular or the non-secular from any specific time or place. It is for all sentient beings.

Gassho

Sat Today

[Byrne]

The question should be "As a Buddhist how do I change the world? Do we allow society control is with its greed, anger, ignorance, pride, etc? We are the manifestation of the the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. Not representatives but actual manifestation.

I can't change the world. But I can do my best to learn the dharma under the circumstances life has afforded me. I suppose the benefits of practicing the dharma lies more in our non-doings rather than conscious efforts.

This is a fantastic thread and I love reading everyone's responses.

Gassho

Sat Today

[Hoseki]

Gassho,

1) Yes, I think Buddhism has historically taken on the flavor of whatever culture it encounters. Problems change, but "not wanting to have any problems" doesn't seem to change. From birth to death (and from east to west) it's just like this.
2) Yes. Buddhism is changing the modern world. "Buddhism" is also changing the modern world. Both the moon and the finger pointing at it are changing the modern world. It's good because it's a path to the end of suffering but it's sometimes not good because people often confuse the painted rice cake for the rice cake. But "you have to say something" as Katagiri Roshi once said.
3) Yes. Buddhism is about reality as we understand it and also as we DON'T understand it. If how we understand it changes then so must Buddhism.
4) Yes. Because no matter how much we understand reality there will be an equal measure of not knowing. Reality exists as-it-is with nothing to add, nothing to take away so there will be a balanced state even while there is individual delusion.

One final anecdote:
When I first read this introduction I was struck by the words of Arthur Toynbee (of whom I knew nothing) so I posted them on Facebook. Someone wrote back "Toynbee was a fascist". [emoji47]
This sparked a long argument about whether or not the source of wisdom is more important than the wisdom itself. I said that "everything is my teacher" and my interlocutor felt that since Toynbee was (allegedly) a Nazi sympathizer that his opinion was invalid.
We went round and round. Finally I turned to my wife and asked her "If Jesus said 'be kind to others' and Hitler said 'be kind to others' would the source matter or would the sentiment be more important?" She surprised me by saying that the source DID matter whereas I felt that prajña is prajña regardless.
Once I calmed down I realized that we were both right and I was a fool to argue.
So bringing this anecdote back to our discussion:
Enlightenment may be the moon but sometimes who's pointing to it can make a big difference.
Sometimes when I say something wise, my friends and family smile and nod and agree with me. Sometimes when I say the same thing in a way that's "Buddhist" they tell me to "spare them the Zen shit".
So, does Buddhism have to change to fit the modern world?
SOMETIMES.
Does Buddhism have to not change to fit the modern world?
SOMETIMES.

Gassho,
Hōkō
#SatToday

Hi Hoko,

For what it's worth I think you position that prajna is prajna was the wiser position.

I think I would approach it using a thought experiment ...

If it was the middle of winter and you leaving a building and some you absolutely hated walked in an told you to be careful because it's slippery would you ignore them?

If Hitler walked in from outside, noticeably wet, and commented on the rain. Would one deny that it was raining when say the rain from the window?

My point being if something is true it's true regardless of how we feel about it or who says it.

We have more in common with those we hate then we realize.

Gassho
Hoseki
Sattoday



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Risho]

Ok first a sidebar: I start losing the point when abstract and "what-if" scenarios get thrown out about what if Hitler meditated or was your weatherman, etc. Ok, I'm being an ass. I'm sure there's a point to those exercises, but I don't really get it. As a segue :P, something that I love about this practice that resonates with me, and why I practice at all is that it's so practical. I think that is something that Zen has always had going for it; it's practicality. It's sort of a form of Buddhism that's focused on the core practice as opposed to all the added ritual and so on. But yeah, I know it has a crapload of its own oddities. I sort of like those too in a way, even though I'm not a traditional Buddhist by any stretch. I'm more of a Bodhidharma/Dogen than a let's sing Koombayah type of dude, but there is room for both.

I want to absolutely clarify that what I'm saying applies only to me. I can't speak for all of Buddhism, nor should I. Similarly, and this is sort of off topic, I don't think a Sangha or any group should speak for me. I think Zen has room for liberal, conservative, etc opinions. I don't think any political views should be assumed just because someone practices Zen. And I don't want Treeleaf to speak on my behalf, and I don't have any right to speak on it's behalf.

Ok so back to my sad attempt at making a point. There is a lot of ritual, etc. in zen too. There's a lot of cultural "baggage" that I don't really "dig" all of that too much (qualify: some times); I'm more for a secularized approach as well as Kirk and Byrne have mentioned. For example, I'm not going to be living in a monastery anytime soon. I don't really have time for imitation in my life. I'm not trying to be someone else. I'm not trying to wear more costumes. Believe me, I play enough roles to add another one.

Now I'm not saying that practitioners that do like doing that are just wearing costumes; I think there are genuine practitioners here and elsewhere who do like that stuff. I met Jundo, and I think he's one of the most down to earth people I've met, and he is how he is here, which is also why I'm here. I'm not trying to pander, but his down to earth teaching appeals to me and motivates me to practice. At the same time, the more my practice matures, the more I have to be honest in my practice here.

So I'm absolutely just speaking for myself, which I think is something that maybe is showing how Buddhism is adapting to our culture here. I think it's going to be applicable to someone like me who really doesn't want to have 3 robes and a bowl. I think my views (which come from my culture) that questions authority, values individualism, etc. will have an impact on Buddhism.

I work in the corporate world, and I'm very much a practicing Buddhist, although I don't really identify myself as being a Buddhist, but I am one. I took the precepts, I try to live by them, I have a regular practice. I love the practice, or I wouldn't do it. But I'm not a smiling zen monk in a mountain. I live in the suburbs, I love technology, I own way too much stuff, I'm not a vegetarian and I don't aspire to be one. I like beer. Sometimes I drink too much.

But zen fits. Zen helps me. I love how I can sit or bring that attitude into my life of being present amidst whatever chaos is occurring, or how I can catch myself getting angry and let it subside (sometimes, ok sometimes. lol) instead of feeding it. So it's practical. But those are just a couple of small and shortsighted and obvious examples. There's so much to this that is difficult to explain.

All of that said, I also see a danger in "boiling" Zen down too much. If you boil something too long, it loses all of its flavor. There is absotively, posilutely an important place for ceremony and ritual and robes and liturgy, etc. I see the value in it, and I really do like that part too, so it's a balance. One of the things I like doing during Ango is chanting more, lighting a candle and incense when I sit, wearing my rakusu daily because I think that is important too. Like everything in life, there is a cycle. Some times you do some things more than others. Practice feels right with this type of rhythm as well.

I don't know how to answer the question about if Buddhism needs to change, because I can't speak for Buddhism. But I think we all have a responsibility to change it for ourselves. We have to adapt it to our lives, or we are just parroting, imitating which, sure, we need to do that until we start learning to ride the bike without the training wheels. But at some point we have to dig in and ask ourselves why we are doing this.

I do think that by virtue of each of us applying Zen to our own lives it naturally will change because we are beings of our time; we can't change that. So I don't think any one should say (or a group of Buddhists), "Hey, Buddhism change." I think either humanity finds things useful or not, and when they do (which I think Buddhism is very much useful) it will adapt just by being practiced and adopted and adapted, very naturally, sort of how language naturally adapts to a culture when it is used, or how tools are honed or new tools discovered as they are used to solve new problems.

I also think it's dangerous to describe what Zen is; actually I think it's pretentious and limiting in a way, sort of like describing emptiness. I think the more I practice the more depth I find in the practice and realize that things that maybe didn't resonate start to resonate with me now, or teachings that seemed way out there really make sense with a different perspective. Of course, just like the imitation analogy, we need pointers and basics, but after we start practicing regularly we need to start questioning this shit for ourselves. Maybe that too is a more modern approach. Lay practitioners in the marketplace, taking it to the streets in our lives.

And I mean question everything, all of our assumptions. And similarly how that modernity most certainly skews our view on Buddhism, Buddhism has timeless truths that also influence us. This isn't a one way street; if it was all one way or the other, there would be no value/need for Buddhism. I think Zen takes us to the basics of what we hold important. I think that like the intro says, we need desperately to find that connection with each other so that we don't see each other as adversaries but learn how to live with each other and truly take care of each other.

I don't have any answers. I have more questions than anything, but I do know; I mean we absolutely do know, deep down, we know when we are bullshitting ourselves.

Gassho,

Risho
-sattoday

[AlanLa]

Risho
Yeah, what he said