I agree those are all factors, though with the communications revolution, the historical and social influences are arguably diminishing relative to the psychological forces, in the context of the modern Buddhist world.Dan74 wrote:Yes, but I am sure history has played a part too - as always it is the interaction of historical, social and psychological forces, isn't it? And you can't separate the three.
Feel free to replace "84,000" with "a shed-load".Dan74 wrote:84000 is not to be taken literally, right?
I wasn't really separating them as such, I just meant as they evolved over time. Arguably, "evolutionary forces" is a blanket statement intend to capture all the actual forces (kammic, physical, other niyamas) that played out over time.Dan74 wrote:Also "evolutionary derived" or kammic or through nature-nurture inteaction...
Understood. And with the increasing emphasis on psychological "predilection" and the veritable smorgasboard of traditions available, it's decreasingly relevant to speak of traditions in the traditional geographical sense, or via their evolutionary path, but to speak of them increasingly in terms of (as you said) personality, predilection and (as Kim said) worldview. As a non-Korean following a path brought to you to Melbourne via Korea, you yourself are a product of this "modern Buddhism" which needn't be explained in the traditional historical way via recourse to Councils, schisms et.al.Dan74 wrote:My belief as I guess you know is that great masters of different times and places have discerned the core of the Buddha's teaching through insight and realisation and having absorbed and assimilated the teachings have made them their own. And so rather than repeating "dead words" they spoke using their own words with the force of their living energy and experience and of course the insight of liberation. So we have Suttas and Sutras, shastras, commentaries, koans, termas, etc etc Some seem more insightful, some seem less when filtered through our own particular slant and predilection.