Re: "The Broken Buddha" by Ven. S. Dhammika
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:30 am
Thanks for the explanation Venerable Fred,
Mike
Mike
A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of TheravÄda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
Bhikkhu Bodhi seems to agree with this...namaste wrote: "For example, the Four Expressions of Sympathy (sangha vatthuni) are frequently mentioned by the Buddha, and could have important implications for a deeper understanding of love and compassion, particularly their social application. Mahayana used them to develop a whole philosophy of practical altruism, but they're given almost no attention in Theravada."
Buddhist Global Relief wrote:In 2007 the American Buddhist scholar-monk, Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, was invited to write an editorial essay for the Buddhist magazine Buddhadharma. In his essay, he called attention to the narrowly inward focus of American Buddhism, which has been pursued to the neglect of the active dimension of Buddhist compassion expressed through programs of social engagement. ...
http://www.buddhistglobalrelief.org/act ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Word. I think there are a lot of people on this forum who fall into that trap. 'I've often thought about it as being similar to a Korean who only gets exposed to the best parts of Christianity and the shock they might get traveling to Europe, the US etc ...mikenz66 wrote: I've seen people whose faith is based on such "idealized portrait in the sacred texts" become rather unstuck when faced with the problem of maintaining their progress in a world that is far from ideal.
...fabianfred wrote: I have been living in Thailand for twenty years now since retiring from the army. First in Chiangmai for 5 years then after meeting my wife there I moved to Fang which is her home town.
Can Thai monks marry or have you just stayed in touch with your family after becoming ordained?My own home and family is just down the road and since my kids are still young it is nice to be that way.
I don't know.namaste wrote:What do members think of the part of the book in which he discusses the Pali canon, and says that there are parts of it that were developed by Theravada, and parts that were ignored, the latter of which became the basis for some of the Mahayana teachings? (Under "What Is Theravada?") He gives a couple of examples, I'll just mention one here:
"For example, the Four Expressions of Sympathy (sangha vatthuni) are frequently mentioned by the Buddha, and could have important implications for a deeper understanding of love and compassion, particularly their social application. Mahayana used them to develop a whole philosophy of practical altruism, but they're given almost no attention in Theravada." He also discusses different versions of dependent origination taught by the Buddha, only one of which was developed into the concept we know as such today.
I find this fascinating. Do readers here feel this is a fair representation of scriptural development?
This is the case with every religion, not just Buddhism. Maybe it's just impossible to make the whole nations to live according to rules made by some prophet many centuries ago. Buddha never claimed that majority of people are going to understand his teachings. Large majority adherents of every religion are never going to care about the real teachings of their religion, they are just going to observe rituals and preserve it as part of tradition. So maybe it was historical necessity to develop this kind of popular Buddhism suitable for the ordinary Asian people.Jhana4 wrote:I found that part of the book fascinating because it shows how much of Asian Buddhism can be Asian rather than Buddhism.
Pretty much my M.O....I don't spend much time at any one temple (if at all, and always solo)...human nature being what it is, monk or no, 'stuff' always seems to happen (been in Thailand more than thirty, and wouldn't want to be anywhere else though)...I could go on but it's not really to anyone's (that I can see) benefit...again, monk or no, just roll with the punches and get on with it...fabianfred wrote: One day we might just decide to leave and go tudong....
We just ignore any bad vibes (from the monks or novices) and get on with our own practice... The lay people are very supportive and like our presence which is why alms-round is our favourite time of day.
I'm glad you agree. I'd like to add that I think the value of making that distinction is that it has the potential to help people avoid wasting their time and to get back to/rediscover the good things the religion has to offer. For American Christianity it would be a matter of discovering that Jesus wasn't an anti-gay crusader and that emphasis is more of an American Christian thing. For Asian Buddhists it might be that the dhamma is not about racking up merit points by drowning monks in gifts.....that there is greater happiness waiting for them in THIS life through meditation and reading the Canon for themselves.Skeptic wrote:This is the case with every religion, not just Buddhism.Jhana4 wrote:I found that part of the book fascinating because it shows how much of Asian Buddhism can be Asian rather than Buddhism.
appicchato wrote:Pretty much my M.O....I don't spend much time at any one temple (if at all, and always solo)...human nature being what it is, monk or no, 'stuff' always seems to happen (been in Thailand more than thirty, and wouldn't want to be anywhere else though)...I could go on but it's not really to anyone's (that I can see) benefit...again, monk or no, just roll with the punches and get on with it...fabianfred wrote: One day we might just decide to leave and go tudong....
We just ignore any bad vibes (from the monks or novices) and get on with our own practice... The lay people are very supportive and like our presence which is why alms-round is our favourite time of day.
ps...Thai (or any Theravadan) monks cannot marry...
ps...the boat ride from Chiang Rai to Fang is great for anyone in the area...
See Ven Fred's discussion of his ordination here: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=3916" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Jhana4 wrote:...fabianfred wrote: I have been living in Thailand for twenty years now since retiring from the army. First in Chiangmai for 5 years then after meeting my wife there I moved to Fang which is her home town.
Can Thai monks marry or have you just stayed in touch with your family after becoming ordained?My own home and family is just down the road and since my kids are still young it is nice to be that way.
I agree. There is good and bad everywhere.Jhana4 wrote:Word. I think there are a lot of people on this forum who fall into that trap. 'I've often thought about it as being similar to a Korean who only gets exposed to the best parts of Christianity and the shock they might get traveling to Europe, the US etc ...mikenz66 wrote: I've seen people whose faith is based on such "idealized portrait in the sacred texts" become rather unstuck when faced with the problem of maintaining their progress in a world that is far from ideal.
I think only having the idealized vision of Buddhism from the texts untempered by the form Buddhism takes in the every day world drives a lot of hostility towards Venerable Dhammikas book........or at least the refusal among western Buddhists on this forum to accept his message. The every day reality of Buddhism versus the ideal in the text don't have to threaten each other....look at the existence of devout Christians on our own side of the world. They coexist with lax Christians, corrupt Christians and Christians who are ignorant of their own religion too.
I guess he's talking about this sutta:namaste wrote:The other example of selectivity in doctrine based on the Pali canon is the doctrine of dependent origination. Dhammika says:
"There are two versions of this doctrine--one showing the arising of suffering, and the other showing the arising of liberation and freedom.
My view is that isn't a problem with the book, but one of the inspirations for it having been written. Like my hypothetical Korean Christian convert, Western Buddhists have only been exposed to the best texts and the best teachers. Not everyone has had the opportunity to travel and spend time in Asia. I think it is reasonable that some people would get a mistakenly idealized vision of every day Buddhism. In fact Venerable Dhammika stated that one of the reasons why he wrote his book was that he was aware that only the good sides of Buddhism were being written about.......giving people a lopsided picture.mikenz66 wrote: The problem I have with the book is when the observations in it are taken as:
1. Something surprising;
I believe Venerable Dhammika mentioned that he believed that to be the case. He also wrote that he didn't empathize that in his book because that side of the story is told almost exclusively. He wrote his book to tell the other side of the story.or
2. Implying that there are not plenty of good lay and monastic practitioners in Asia.