Two Naked Buddhas

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Two Naked Buddhas

Postby zavk » Tue Jan 19, 2010 12:03 pm

Interesting thread... haven't been online much recently but this reminds me of something I read.

I think most, if not all, contemporary Buddhists would not disagree that it is important to attune the Dhamma to contemporary circumstances. This is a process that has occurred many times in the history of Buddhism as it migrated into different countries and cultures. In fact, we might say that one reason Buddhism has survived for so long is because it has been able to adapt to different cultures in innovative ways. As Ven. Huifeng and Kim suggest, the adaption of Buddhism in China is one good example.

This process of adaptation--a process of change and transformation--is really a process of innovation, and innovation is necessary if the Dhamma is to maintain its vitality. (Note: innovation should not be confused as embellishment).

Yet, this process has always been described as a kind of 'stripping back'. In the past, various schools and sects in China, Japan, Tibet, etc, have all made the claim that they teach the 'original' teachings of the Buddha, even though their interpretations of the Dhamma are shaped by dialogues with other traditions, philosophies, and practices. Some modern day successors of these schools/sects still make the same claim.

A similar claim is being made for modern Buddhism. This is most evident in scientific interpretations of Buddhism that emerged out of nineteenth century western scholarship. These interpretations still influence contemporary Buddhism. These interpretations are products of our time; they reflect the process of adaptation and change that the Dhamma must inevitably go through. These interpretations of the Dhamma are unique to our historical circumstances. Yet, like those schools/sects of premodern Asia, modern (scientific) Buddhism is making the often repeated claim that it is merely 'stripping back' the Dhamma, rather than 'giving shape' to it.

So it seems to me that a certain habit has persisted throughout the history of Buddhism.

Anyway I think this passage from Donald Lopez Jr's Buddhism and Science raise some interesting points:

Innovation has, of course, occurred in myriad ways over the course of the tradition, but that innovation must always be portrayed as elaboration, as yet another articulation of the Buddha's enlightenment. The content of this enlightenment is not regarded as a vague truth, the ever-receding point of an endless path; the content of the Buddha's enlightenment is described in detail in various Buddhist traditions. It is not, as the Victorian delighted in declaring, that Buddhism has no dogmas. It is perhaps that it has too many.

Yet there is a certain parallel between the Buddha of the tradition and the Buddha of science. The Buddha of the tradition is validated by being the last or, more accurately, most recent in a long line of enlightened beings who have discovered, and taught, the same truth. The Buddha of science is validated not by being the end, but at the origin, as the perfected the person who discovered truths that lesser men would only learn millennia later. For the Buddha of tradition to be valid, he must have understood what others had known long before him. For the Buddha of science to be valid, he must have understood what others did not know and would not know, until long after him.

Each of these visions is profoundly retrospective; each evinces a deep longing for the primordial. The authority of the Buddha of the tradition derives from the fact that he has simply rediscovered eternal truths that the prehistoric buddhas had also found; much of the early literature recounts their lives more than they do his. And the disciples of the Buddha of science derive deep comfort from the thought that modern discoveries in quantum physics were known by the ancient Buddha, so long ago (pp. 138-139).


Lopez's language here is slightly provocative, but I don't think he is belittling Buddhism or the possibility of Awakening as such. I think he is making an important point about how we conceptualise Buddhism. As I have highlighted in the quote above, are we in fact unconsciously longing for the primordial when we repeatedly claim that we are merely ‘stripping back’ the Dhamma or that we have unmediated access to what the Buddha 'originally taught'? In this instance, the primordial is not 'God' or some Divine Essence, but is rather located in conceptuality, in our conceptions of Buddhism.

In doing so, are we unconsciously seeking to secure the ‘self’ on a permanent, fixed conceptual ground—whilst all the while proclaiming that we need to realise that there is no permanent, fixed self?

The challenge, as I see it, is how we might maintain the tradition and translate the Dhamma in innovative ways without clinging too tightly to either of them.
Last edited by zavk on Tue Jan 19, 2010 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
With metta,
zavk
User avatar
zavk
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Two Naked Buddhas

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Jan 19, 2010 12:07 pm

Hi Kim,
Kim O'Hara wrote:You are both quite clear about what you don't want modern western Buddhism to become - and I agree with you - but less clear about what you do want it to become.

Because I have no idea, and no way of influencing such a thing, beyond supporting the teachers I care about.
Kim O'Hara wrote:Do either of you seriously think Buddhism can thrive in our societies as a monastic tradition supported by a lay population whose practice consists largely of the five precepts, dana and devotion?

Who knows? At present the teachers I have had a significant amount of instruction from (monks my Wat and at the Ajahn Chah monasteries) are supported like that. Of course, right now if there wasn't a Thai community in New Zealand they might be going a little hungry...

Metta
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10775
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Two Naked Buddhas

Postby PeterB » Tue Jan 19, 2010 12:09 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:Hello, Mike and Peter,
You are both quite clear about what you don't want modern western Buddhism to become - and I agree with you - but less clear about what you do want it to become.
Do either of you seriously think Buddhism can thrive in our societies as a monastic tradition supported by a lay population whose practice consists largely of the five precepts, dana and devotion?

:namaste:
Kim

Ah yes, " when did you stop beating your wife".
Thats called a closed question Mr O Hara. The centres I know best in the Uk are the above mentioned Chithurst, Amaravati, Harnham Vihara and Wat Buddhapadipa. In each case the lay populations contribution goes way beyond precepts, dana and devotion. In each case there is a thriving community of lay meditators who are living the Dhamma life as householders.
PeterB
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Previous

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests