Develop sila, samadhi and panna.binocular wrote: It's not always easy to figure out how to balance the sense of urgency with calm.
kind regards,
Ben
Develop sila, samadhi and panna.binocular wrote: It's not always easy to figure out how to balance the sense of urgency with calm.
I think the problems arise when someone purports their particular exegesis of Buddhism as The Buddhism.daverupa wrote:If Dhammic exegesis conforms in certain ways to the culture within which it is propagated, I see no reason to judge modern attempts at this as being more or less valid than past attempts in and of themselves, to wit "Thai Buddhism" and so forth.
It seems hypocritical to see "modern Theravada" as liable to criticism if such things as "Burmese..." and "Thai Forest..." are seen as acceptable. There are problems with and within all such groupings, are there not?
Well, I don't have a problem with not calling myself a Buddhist. Although some people really put a lot of stock in calling themselves Buddhists and to be considered as such by others.Paribbajaka wrote:That's a good point. So how about the aformentioned monks who sell charms and tell fortunes? How about the monks in Burma inciting violence? What about the Pali commentators that began to delineate and define points not in the orginal texts? Very often today we hear of the different "layers" of the Pali canon, how certain parts were clearly added later or modified, and about how the whole of the Abhidhamma is most liekly not Buddha sasana... why continue to use the name of Buddhism at all if you're going to do these things?
It's because this is a living tradition, much like how Christianity has changed since ancient Palestine. Traditions survive by adapting and changing.
The Buddha speaks in the Pali Canon of kings and monarchs, but we have very few monarchies left. Does this mean Buddhists should oppose democracy? Or do we adapt the teachings on monarchs to our current elected officials?
The Buddha speaks at one point in the Pali Canon on seeing through sexual desire, and uses a woman "at the height of her beauty, 16 years of age" as an example in a sermon. Should Buddhists then adapt the teaching to current views of sexual maturity, or apply it in its written way and risk criminal charges in some countries?
This is not an argument for a free-for-all do what feels good Dhamma, but a Dhamma that is open to changing the small things in order to accomodate a popualtion that is very different philosphically, socially, and politically from that of ancient India.
My experience has been that everyone is capable of anger and vindictiveness with the right (wrong?) conditions.binocular wrote: Often, I've seen this from "modern" Buddhists, and sometimes accompanied with a considerable amount of hatred and contempt.
In my experience, while the traditionalist extremists may chide one and send one away with an idle hand gesture, I find that the modern extremists are much more feisty - like really angry and vindictive. Huh.