Culture should't become a trap.

[muni]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYLedF8Lagc

What liberates doesn't dependent on 'right' culture...

[Indrajala]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYLedF8Lagc

What liberates doesn't dependent on 'right' culture...

Sure, but lately a lot of people have been plain wrong in what they call "culture" as opposed to Buddhadharma, and then proceed to throw out Buddhadharma calling it "unnecessary cultural adornments".

[Seishin]

So true

[Chaz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYLedF8Lagc

What liberates doesn't dependent on 'right' culture...

Sure, but lately a lot of people have been plain wrong in what they call "culture" as opposed to Buddhadharma, and then proceed to throw out Buddhadharma calling it "unnecessary cultural adornments".

Please explain what aspects of Buddhadharma are being cast off as "culture". How are they wrong?

Isn't this road of trying to diffentiate between what is "culture" and what is Buddhadharma as a means of deciding what to keep and what to discard equally entangling?

[Indrajala]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYLedF8Lagc

What liberates doesn't dependent on 'right' culture...

Sure, but lately a lot of people have been plain wrong in what they call "culture" as opposed to Buddhadharma, and then proceed to throw out Buddhadharma calling it "unnecessary cultural adornments".

Please explain what aspects of Buddhadharma are being cast off as "culture". How are they wrong?

Isn't this road of trying to diffentiate between what is "culture" and what is Buddhadharma as a means of deciding what to keep and what to discard equally entangling?

Some have suggested rebirth is just a cultural adornment from ancient Indian civilization, and hence proceed to craft a "Buddhism" without rebirth.

[Chaz]

Please explain what aspects of Buddhadharma are being cast off as "culture". How are they wrong?

Isn't this road of trying to diffentiate between what is "culture" and what is Buddhadharma as a means of deciding what to keep and what to discard equally entangling?

Some have suggested rebirth is just a cultural adornment from ancient Indian civilization, and hence proceed to craft a "Buddhism" without rebirth.

Ok, that's one thing. Anything else?

[Malcolm]

Please explain what aspects of Buddhadharma are being cast off as "culture". How are they wrong?

Isn't this road of trying to diffentiate between what is "culture" and what is Buddhadharma as a means of deciding what to keep and what to discard equally entangling?

Some have suggested rebirth is just a cultural adornment from ancient Indian civilization, and hence proceed to craft a "Buddhism" without rebirth.

Ok, that's one thing. Anything else?

There are all kinds of things in Tibean Buddhism that are more culture than Buddhism. Even Samdhong Rinpoche brought this up at Garrison Institute -- warning western Buddhists that they needed to carefully distinguish between what things were Tibetan and what things were Buddhist in Tibetan Buddhism, and preferring the latter.

[Chaz]

There are all kinds of things in Tibean Buddhism that are more culture than Buddhism. Even Samdhong Rinpoche brought this up at Garrison Institute -- warning western Buddhists that they needed to carefully distinguish between what things were Tibetan and what things were Buddhist in Tibetan Buddhism, and preferring the latter.

I think that's very true.

In the case of a subject such as rebirth, I think it's more a matter of making excuses for the result of trying to deal with a concept that is irrelevant or meaningless to a particular culture or just doesn't make sense to the individual. There are, on the other hand, plenty of examples of culture trappings that attend Buddhism that can and perhaps should be discarded.

Tibetan Buddhism, in it's myriad flavors, is an excellent example. TB is full of exotic, unusal and fascinating culture trappings exclusive to that type of Buddhism. A lot of people find that whole Tibetan "thing" extremely attractive and latch onto that rather than the Dharma TB teaches. That's a trap.

Chogyam Trungpa called it Spiritual Materialism.

One thing Ponlop Rinpoche has done is to omit Tibetan from the Nalandabodhi practice liturgy and certain sadhanas. Except for key words that don't translate easily or elegantly and mantras, all Nalandabodhi practices in the US and Canada are in English. He does still teach in Tibetan from time to time, despite an excellent command of English, but I think this is to train translators for when foriegn teachers and dignitaries like Dilyak Drupon Rinpoche and HH 17th Karmapa visit.

[muni]

[
Some have suggested rebirth is just a cultural adornment from ancient Indian civilization, and hence proceed to craft a "Buddhism" without rebirth.

At least meditation we cannot throw out "our Buddhist teachings". Brighter clarity can be revealed than in my chatter.
A clarity for example that what "I think to think or belief", isn't that own grasping to fleeting?

Whether there is "belief" in rebirth or not, shall that change nature?
Shall habits stop and no rebirth follow when we of right culture/tradition know truth? Little controlling mature me wisely reject. Rebirth of "habits" isn't a merely "belief".
Buddhism without rebirth I don't know.
Free teaching of paramitas, like patience...for rejecting-accepting-believing...

[Jikan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYLedF8Lagc

What liberates doesn't dependent on 'right' culture...

Sure, but lately a lot of people have been plain wrong in what they call "culture" as opposed to Buddhadharma, and then proceed to throw out Buddhadharma calling it "unnecessary cultural adornments".

Could you please cite some examples? I don't remember Batchelor (for one) taking culture on like this, but it's been a while since I've read his work. I've seen it on teh interwebz, but are there any teachers of Dharma doing this?

[Indrajala]

Could you please cite some examples? I don't remember Batchelor (for one) taking culture on like this, but it's been a while since I've read his work. I've seen it on teh interwebz, but are there any teachers of Dharma doing this?

There are scholars who assume Buddha taught rebirth just because he was Indian. I think this opinion is widespread here in Japan.

I don't have names handy off the top of my head.

I don't read the work of anyone who rejects rebirth and then claims they're writing something about Buddhism.

[Jikan]

Could you please cite some examples? I don't remember Batchelor (for one) taking culture on like this, but it's been a while since I've read his work. I've seen it on teh interwebz, but are there any teachers of Dharma doing this?

There are scholars who assume Buddha taught rebirth just because he was Indian. I think this opinion is widespread here in Japan.

I don't have names handy off the top of my head.

I don't read the work of anyone who rejects rebirth and then claims they're writing something about Buddhism.

That's helpful, thanks. I'm familiar with stuff like this...

http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-24/b ... o.facebook

...but I can't remember if some popular writers (was it maybe Joko Beck? Joanna Macy? Kornfield? aging isn't gentle to the mind) take this view.

[Indrajala]

This is also a great article detailing how Buddhism is being appropriated by psychologists in the west:

http://www.discourseunit.com/arcp/arcp8/arcp8cohen.pdf

FROM THE BODHI TREE, TO THE ANALYST‘S COUCH, THEN INTO THE MRI SCANNER: THE PSYCHOLOGISATION OF BUDDHISM

The gradual transformation of Buddhism from a religion into a secular philosophy and
Psychology is partly what this paper intends to highlight, explore and critique.

[Chaz]

This is also a great article detailing how Buddhism is being appropriated by psychologists in the west:

http://www.discourseunit.com/arcp/arcp8/arcp8cohen.pdf

FROM THE BODHI TREE, TO THE ANALYST‘S COUCH, THEN INTO THE MRI SCANNER: THE PSYCHOLOGISATION OF BUDDHISM

The gradual transformation of Buddhism from a religion into a secular philosophy and
Psychology is partly what this paper intends to highlight, explore and critique.

Something wrong with psychologists adopting Buddhist thought and/practices into their work with patients?

[Chaz]

I don't read the work of anyone who rejects rebirth and then claims they're writing something about Buddhism.

How do you know if the reject something like rebirth if you don't read them first?

</c>

[Jikan]

Not necessarily. Dialectical Behavior Therapy, for instance, is grounded in a certain form of Buddhist meditation, and is very helpful for people with borderline personality syndrome. (Marsha Linehan was/is a student of Thich Nhat Hanh, if I remember correctly.)

The trouble is going the other way: assuming that the psychologized Kornfield-Goldstein-Batchelor version *is* Buddhism or represents all or the best of what the Buddhist tradition has to offer. That would be reductive in the highest.

[Indrajala]

I don't read the work of anyone who rejects rebirth and then claims they're writing something about Buddhism.

How do you know if the reject something like rebirth if you don't read them first?

</c>

The valid testimony of authorities who have taken the time to read their work and highlight the deviant quality of their work.

I also know scholars of Buddhism in real life who reject rebirth. I don't take them too seriously when they start talking about Buddhism as they understand it.

[Indrajala]

Something wrong with psychologists adopting Buddhist thought and/practices into their work with patients?

Some have positioned themselves as the judges of what constitutes Buddhadharma despite their faulty understandings of basic Buddhism. They even publish their opinions making it seem all the more legitimate.

[Indrajala]

The trouble is going the other way: assuming that the psychologized Kornfield-Goldstein-Batchelor version *is* Buddhism or represents all or the best of what the Buddhist tradition has to offer. That would be reductive in the highest.

There are some whose Buddhism more or less is that version.

Worse is that they posit their opinions as legitimate and educated, meanwhile they don't even have a basic grasp of Buddhism 101.

[pueraeternus]

Please explain what aspects of Buddhadharma are being cast off as "culture". How are they wrong?

Isn't this road of trying to diffentiate between what is "culture" and what is Buddhadharma as a means of deciding what to keep and what to discard equally entangling?

Some have suggested rebirth is just a cultural adornment from ancient Indian civilization, and hence proceed to craft a "Buddhism" without rebirth.

Ok, that's one thing. Anything else?

Quite a number of western Buddhists consider beings such as devas and pretas to be purely human psychological states of mind, and not actual beings like us.