One could argue how the dhamma could be perceived as a religion, and then investigate the relationship between religions and institutions. A mark of institutions is governance, where the management of the institution or state takes a hierarchical structure as a way of channeling authorit0y, determining responsibilities, dividing labor and decision making. Such a structure is believed to enable institutions to have a declared mission, and to interact with other institutions. Religion is integral to this process and arises with the evolution of societies due to certain shortcomings in formal institutions . For example, the lack of direct access to thought processes creates a vacuum to be filled by religion. The dhamma (and religions in general) focuses on the minds and intentions of individuals to ensure law abiding conduct in a way complementing institutional rules and regulations. Institutions will always have loopholes to be filled by notions of the after life, heaven and hell, kamma eventually catching up with you, laws of attraction that establishes semi-causal relationship between thoughts and physical phenomena ...etcdharmacorps wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 7:05 pmThe dhamma isn't an institution (?).Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 7:35 am
So tell me, how is the dhamma doing in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, previous global centres of Buddhism? Oh that's right it's basically non-existant there now.
Your views are simply naive idealism.
I said the dhamma 'as an institution' rests on powerful military states, and the above countries are living proof of this. The dhamma as personal practice rests on virtue yes. If you don't want to acknowledge this dual aspect then don't talk about it, just stick to personal practice.
Unless you are attempting to equate a clerical human institution with the state, something like the Sangha's state backed status in Thailand or Burma. But that is the Sangha. The dhamma exists when people practice it, not when people have weapons to kill unbelievers for it. The are innumerable suttas which this which SDC has quoted that reject such concepts. The Buddha was not a fan of militarism and religious wars.
Most theravada sangha countries have regionally significant but not globally substantial militaries. Burma or Thailand would be toast if China, India, or Pakistan decided to attack them. Heck, Cambodia's military state killed off almost the entire sangha at one point during Khmer Rouge years. Burma is doing plenty of that too now.
Not much there either way.
This is why, institutions love religion and is part of its continuum (and demise for that matter). While the individual is the subject-target of religions considering that death is experienced within his/her privacy, it leads to all sorts of collective actions such as rituals, group retreats, uniformity of the robes and shaving heads, pilgrimage, chanting and prayers. In some extreme forms, institutions attempts to hijack religion in order to present itself as all-powerful and almighty such as communism, declared secularism, humanism or scientism, all introducing alternatives based on heroism (social justice warriors) and bravery (accepting the materialistic/nihilistic version of death being at face value is presented as some kind of intellectual bravery). However, religions in its more traditional forms are still preferable to most institutions and states. It is no wonder the role the orthodox church in Russia is playing in generating support for the war, and here in Buddhism, we have the likes of Ven. Bodhi who argues along the same lines. The western version of institutional missions takes the form of new version of missionary wars to spread democracy and all the rest of it.