Western cultural adaptations

[Anagarika]

In most Asian languages, the word for rebirth and reincarnation
is the same.
This is something that many westerners are not aware of.

Interesting that in the primarily English speaking west that we do have different words, and as I understand, the Buddha taught rebirth without the metaphysical explanation, but did not teach reincarnation as has been defined above, for example, in the Tibetan tradition. If there is no differentiation in some Asian languages, this could lead to confusion among the laity as to Sutta rebirth.

[tiltbillings]

In most Asian languages, the word for rebirth and reincarnation
is the same.
This is something that many westerners are not aware of.

Actual examples, please.

[waterchan]

In most Asian languages, the word for rebirth and reincarnation
is the same.
This is something that many westerners are not aware of.

Actual examples, please.

ႈIn the Burmese language, this is the word for the process of transmigration from one being to another:

Untitled.png (4.09 KiB) Viewed 1820 times

and it literally means "person enters-occupies".

I don't think any other words exist. And if they do, there wouldn't be the kind of difference in meaning as between rebirth and reincarnation.

What's significant is that no one over there really uses this word when talking about rebirth/reincarnation in daily conversation. Instead, they would construct a sentence using a combination of the terms "this life", "next life", "birth", and "death". It's quite similar to how there is no mention of "rebirth" in the dependent origination model, just birth, death, and birth again.

I am inclined to think that the debate of "rebirth" vs "reincarnation" is an attempt to impose Western ideas upon Eastern philosophy. Can't we just say "birth-and-death" a la Nagasena instead?

[appicchato]

Can't we just say "birth-and-death" a la Nagasena instead?

Sure...that option is open to you, and everyone else...

[mikenz66]

we have Ven. Thanissaro for example, who has invested his life into an investigation of Dhamma, and I see no compelling reason to doubt his fundamental opinions as to Dhamma.

No way would I question Ven T's sincerity and devotion to the Dhamma, but he is wide open to serious doubt concerning some of his opinions about the Mahayana and some things Theravada, showing himself to be not without problems as a scholar.

Prof. Rita Gross, who is a Vajrayana practitioner, but writes very skillfully as a historian and anthropogist as to what is Buddhavacana, in her expert opinion, and what later developed as myth.

Myth. Myth is an interesting word that can be used in a positive as well as a negative sense. Interestingly, the Nikayas seem to have a fair amount of "myth' playing out in the suttas, as well. What is meant by myth here?

Coincidentally, I listened to a series of Prof Gross' talks over the weekend: http://audiodharma.org/series/253/talk/4577/
She certainly talks about "stories" and "myths" in a positive way. I find her expositions a refreshing change from the attitude that stories have to be literally true to be useful.


Mike

[binocular]

I wonder if this quest for "true dhamma" is a western concern? I.e trying to separate the core teachings from the cultural baggage, rather than taking Buddhism as it has been handed down to us. Although I am aware there are many "eastern" teachers who had similar concerns, i.e ajahn Chah.

It doesn't seem like just a Western concern.

For another ample -

Ajaan Suwat often mentioned that one of Ajaan Mun's two favorite Dhamma talk topics was the "customs of the noble ones": the ariyavamsa in Pali. One of his reasons for focusing on this teaching was something that we tend to miss when we look at the forest tradition from an American perspective. From our perspective it's a very Thai tradition. But Ajaan Mun got a lot of flack in his day for going against Thai customs, Laotian customs — following the dhutanga practices, eating only one meal a day, eating out of his bowl, living out in the forest. People criticized him for this, saying that he was breaking with Thai custom. His response was that he wasn't interested in Thai customs or Lao customs or anybody's customs aside from the customs of the Noble Ones. He said, "If they're not the customs of the Noble Ones then they're the customs of people with defilement."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ions2.html

Obviously, other than Westerners were concerned about the true Dhamma.

rather than taking Buddhism as it has been handed down to us

That's just it: many Westerners don't really have "Buddhism as it has been handed down to us", as many Westerners are in the situation where they are exposed to several schools of Buddhism first, before they make up their mind on which school to devote themselves to.

To have "Buddhism as it has been handed down to us", one would have to be born into a Buddhist community, or otherwise be in such a situation (due to external circumstances or ignorance) where one has no choice nor knowledge of the variety of Buddhist schools.

But once we have choice as to which particular Buddhist to listen to, there is less and less of a "Buddhism as it has been handed down to us."

[binocular]

It has been handed down to us in many different garbs. It would be rather confusing to try to accept them all - theravada, zen, vajrayana, nichiren, tendai, pure land ... just to mention some of them.
This means we have to apply some critical thinking.

"Critical thinking" - by whose standard of " critical thinking"? And if we're going to go by such a standard, then why choose a particular Buddhist or any other school, rather than just stick to that standard (and the ontology, epistemology, and ethics implied in that standard) to begin with?
I mean, I am skeptical about the idea that the true Dhamma can be arrived at by critically thinking about the existing Buddhist schools and comparing them.

I think the Hare Krishnas introduce an interesting concept that may be worth considering (and may in fact already exist in Asian Buddhism, it's just that we in the West aren't seeing it?), namely, that of the "triple check" guru-sadhu-sastra. That is, essentially, that a person should follow only instructions that the three sources (ie. one's teacher, saintly people, and scriptures) agree on. This approach has its double binds too, to be sure, but it's not rocket science either.

Isn't part of the answer what Ven. Thanissaro is getting at? "they come not from the Buddha's teachings but from the Dharma gate of Western psychology"

We cannot but enter the Dhamma through one gate or another. This is inevitable, and I don't think it is a problem as long as one doesn't declare oneself as having "arrived".

needs to pay attention to what the Buddha actually taught,

But we can only take on faith that a teaching is one by the Buddha.

It seems to me that many Westerners are big on declaring they "have it right" - much in the mainstream Christian spirit of declaring one _knows__ exactly_ what it is that Jesus and God mean and want. And that this sense of urgency of considering oneself to "have it right" is what may be causing the most problems for Westerners. That spirit of "I know what the Buddha taught and anyone who disagrees with me disagrees with the Buddha himself".

Otherwise, we can call it Zen, or yoga, or psychology, or 'secular Buddhism," but we can't really honestly call it Buddhadhamma.

Maybe Westerners have the general tendency to be concerned with names and declarations to the point that it is counterproductive. Which would be a good example of cultural baggage.

[Kim OHara]

I think the Hare Krishnas introduce an interesting concept that may be worth considering (and may in fact already exist in Asian Buddhism, it's just that we in the West aren't seeing it?), namely, that of the "triple check" guru-sadhu-sastra. That is, essentially, that a person should follow only instructions that the three sources (ie. one's teacher, saintly people, and scriptures) agree on. This approach has its double binds too, to be sure, but it's not rocket science either.

Surely this is simply the Triple Gem - Buddha, Dharma and Sangha? And "taking refuge" in it is depending on it?


Kim

[Goofaholix]

I think the Hare Krishnas introduce an interesting concept that may be worth considering (and may in fact already exist in Asian Buddhism, it's just that we in the West aren't seeing it?), namely, that of the "triple check" guru-sadhu-sastra. That is, essentially, that a person should follow only instructions that the three sources (ie. one's teacher, saintly people, and scriptures) agree on. This approach has its double binds too, to be sure, but it's not rocket science either.

Surely this is simply the Triple Gem - Buddha, Dharma and Sangha? And "taking refuge" in it is depending on it?

Yes surely, it's not rocket science, even modern religions are adopting this approach it seems.

[Ben]

I think the Hare Krishnas introduce an interesting concept that may be worth considering (and may in fact already exist in Asian Buddhism, it's just that we in the West aren't seeing it?), namely, that of the "triple check" guru-sadhu-sastra. That is, essentially, that a person should follow only instructions that the three sources (ie. one's teacher, saintly people, and scriptures) agree on. This approach has its double binds too, to be sure, but it's not rocket science either.

Surely this is simply the Triple Gem - Buddha, Dharma and Sangha? And "taking refuge" in it is depending on it?

Yes surely, it's not rocket science, even modern religions are adopting this approach it seems.

You will also find that Buddhism predates the Hare Krishnas and even Hinduism. It would not surprise me that it is one of the many Buddhist artefacts that have been incorporated into Hinduism and some of its offshoots.

[Goofaholix]

You will also find that Buddhism predates the Hare Krishnas and even Hinduism. It would not surprise me that it is one of the many Buddhist artefacts that have been incorporated into Hinduism and some of its offshoots.

According to Wikipaedia Hare Krishna was founded in 1966, the same year Luang Por Sumedho ordained and only 3 years before Goenka started teaching in India BTW.

[Ben]

Hi Goof,
Yes, that is the modern Krsna Comsciousness (ISKON) movement. But that seems to be the modern iteration of a Krishna devotion cult it has been going for quite a while longer.
Kind regards,
Ben

[Mr Man]

Re Hare Krishna: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitanya_Mahaprabhu

[appicchato]

Lived near a Hare Krishna house in Laguna Beach, California in the sixties...a mad lot...please refresh my memory, why are we talking about them?...

[Ben]

Lived near a Hare Krishna house in Laguna Beach, California in the sixties...a mad lot...please refresh my memory, why are we talking about them?...

Hi Bhante,
They sound like heady days!
The diversion relates to comments binocular made here:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 80#p283458

The diversion is sort of on topic as it is an exploration of the conditioning influence of one religion or mental culture over another.
Kind regards,
Ben.