Let me clarify that I do not think that you are suggesting that modern Buddhists should impose their views on traditional Buddhists. I understand that you are merely hoping to see the Dhamma presented from different angles.
But I agree with Mike that this is already happening. In fact, this has been happening since around the mid-nineteenth century. The encounter between Buddhism and modernity has brought about a rapid reconfiguration of the way the Dhamma is understood--a process greatly facilitated by Western attempts to harmonise the Dhamma with modern modes of understanding.
This process of 'Buddhist modernism' has in turn triggered a reconfiguration of the Dhamma in traditional Buddhist Asian countries. We have seen figures like Anagarika Dharmapala of Ceylon, Mahasi Sayadaw of Burma, and Bhikkhu Buddhadasa of Thailand (just to name a few) repositioning the Dhamma within a modern framework.
These figures from traditional Asian Buddhist countries, along with Western Buddhists scholars like Thomas Rhys-Davids, have been very influential in de-emphasising the religious, ritualistic aspects of (Theravada) Buddhism and reconfiguring it as a pragmatic and rationalist system. Their influence persists today in various lay oriented approaches to the Dhamma. In fact, without their efforts many of us probably wouldn't even have discovered Buddhism and we probably wouldn't even have a forum like DW, discussing the Dhamma in the way we do .
The aim of my previous post was simply to raise some rhetorical questions for further reflection.
Modern Buddhism has allowed us to engage with the Dhamma from 'different angles'. But this is possible only because of various historical, cultural, and social conditions coming together. This modern approach to the Dhamma has proven very effective for many modern folks in non-traditional Buddhist Asian countries. I am immensely grateful for that. I do find this modern approach more relevant to my experience and more 'effective' than certain traditional approaches. Like you, I find some traditional activities irrelevant to my experience. However, I also recognise that this modern approach is (as I've been trying to show) a thoroughly contingent one. It is not inherently more effective but is only so within certain contexts.
As I see it, this means that the modern approach does not--cannot--set the normative standard against which traditional forms of Buddhism are judged. This is something that I try to be mindful of as much as possible. The modern approach like the traditional one is context dependent. I understand that those traditional approaches evolved in response to the needs of different people under different circumstances. In the same manner, the modern approach is evolving in response to the needs of contemporary people under contemporary circumstances.
So as much as I prefer the modern approach, whenever I encounter more traditional expressions of Buddhism I try to use it as an opportunity to reflect on the conditionality of my understanding of the Dhamma. When I encounter aspects of the Dhamma that seem irrelevant to me, I take it as an opportunity to reflect on the boundaries of my Buddhist practice, to understand how it has come to be so, and also to question what I might have taken for granted or left out.
Once again, I have gone on spiel... I apologise. But I agree with what you have said, that we should by no means abandon rituals and tradition. I think they can tell us much about our own modern approach to the Dhamma, about how we ought to or ought not proceed. This is where ethnic Buddhists communities play a vital role in the ever-evolving ecology of the Dhamma. But to learn from these traditional expressions of the Dhamma, I believe we need to also see the conditionality of our own approach.
