The Problem of Modern Buddhism

[plwk]

[tomamundsen]

There seems to be a hint of sectarianism here, where he says that he discovered that the true Buddhist teachings exist in the Theravada Suttas. He didn't outright say it, but it sounded like he was implying that the Mahayana Sutras and Vajrayana Tantras do not contain the Buddha's teachings.

[KwanSeum]

There seems to be a hint of sectarianism here, where he says that he discovered that the true Buddhist teachings exist in the Theravada Suttas. He didn't outright say it, but it sounded like he was implying that the Mahayana Sutras and Vajrayana Tantras do not contain the Buddha's teachings.

The guy starts off saying modern Buddhists don't know the teachings or the way and then goes on to boldly claim "he has discovered the truth".

The world is full of people of all denominations who believe they alone (or perhaps their sect) has "has discovered the truth". IMO he, and the others can safely be ignored.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Exclusivism is the curse of all reference points. Let's abandon them.

[meindzai]

I'm not sure what you guys are getting worked up about. Perhaps you didn't listen to the talk in it's entirety.

Firstly, this is clearly a Theravada monk speaking from that perspective, so he is not, and should not, be advocating Mahayana scriptures. That's not sectarianism, that's just the rightful acknowledgement about what Theravada is about - the early teachings. It's likely he was speaking to a group with similar inclinations.

Secondly, the warnings he issued were in reference not only to Mahayana, vajrayana, etc. but also Theravada itself with regards to the commentarial tradition and Abhidhamma. He also warned about regional interpretations (japanese, chinese, burmese, sri lankan), saying that interpretations are just interpretations.

Thirdly, he did not say he discovered the truth. In fact he said "I have been struggling for many years to understand this. I don't say that I have discovered everything and I have found the real truth. But I would say that whatever I have found, I think it is correct. I may be wrong at the same time." and later "You should test what I say also. You should not take it blindly."

He's talking about problems that exist in Buddhism as it is practiced today and he has a very good point.

-M

[Blue Garuda]

I'm not sure what you guys are getting worked up about. Perhaps you didn't listen to the talk in it's entirety.

Firstly, this is clearly a Theravada monk speaking from that perspective, so he is not, and should not, be advocating Mahayana scriptures. That's not sectarianism, that's just the rightful acknowledgement about what Theravada is about - the early teachings. It's likely he was speaking to a group with similar inclinations.

Secondly, the warnings he issued were in reference not only to Mahayana, vajrayana, etc. but also Theravada itself with regards to the commentarial tradition and Abhidhamma. He also warned about regional interpretations (japanese, chinese, burmese, sri lankan), saying that interpretations are just interpretations.

Thirdly, he did not say he discovered the truth. In fact he said "I have been struggling for many years to understand this. I don't say that I have discovered everything and I have found the real truth. But I would say that whatever I have found, I think it is correct. I may be wrong at the same time." and later "You should test what I say also. You should not take it blindly."

He's talking about problems that exist in Buddhism as it is practiced today and he has a very good point.

-M

If a person warns against the Mahayana, Vajrayana and Abhidharma and against interpretations, then his own interpretation and assertion of correctness is highly suspect, IMHO.

If he thinks his interpretation is correct then he regards it as the real truth.

Therefore his statements seem self-contradictory as he is saying that he is correct (and must therefore have found the real truth) while denying that he is saying it.

This seems like failry typical guru-speak so no better or worse than many I guess.

[Astus]

What Bhante Punnaji presents is modern Buddhism itself, in a sense. It is the concept of returning to the original teachings by putting aside the layers of interpretations created by different traditions. This is not at all defending Theravada against Mahayana, that is clear from what he says, but trying to establish what the Buddha really taught and putting aside the myriad views about the Dharma as they're not the Dharma itself. It is also noteworthy when he defines the Buddha's teaching as a problem and a solution to that problem, and whatever solves the problem is the Buddha's teaching. That is hardly sectarianism but rather pragmatism. Identifying the original teachings with the sutras preserved in the Theravada tradition is not his idea but rather a conclusion of many scholars comparing the different texts we have. Of course, one could as well add here that the agamas found in other languages are representatives of the same original teaching, however, none of them as complete as it is in the Pali language.

Whether diversity in Buddhism is a problem or not is a good question indeed. When those unfamiliar with Buddhism ask "What is Buddhism?" it is not easy to answer unless one wants to present only a single tradition. And every tradition is an attempt to unify the different teachings, especially in case of Mahayana schools. Then we can see how there are many takes on a teaching that is said to be taught by a single person. And as it has happened in different Asian cultures there are ought to be new forms of unifications of the diverse teachings of which one example is the Triratna Buddhist Community (formerly FWBO), another one is Joseph Goldstein's book "One Dharma".

[Blue Garuda]

Identifying the original teachings with the sutras preserved in the Theravada tradition is not his idea but rather a conclusion of many scholars comparing the different texts we have.

Yes, but this requires two beliefs for those conclusions to be valid:

That the Pali Canon is accurate.
and
That the Pali Canon comprises the original teachings, and that scriptures such as the Avatamsaka Sutra are not the Buddha's words.

Yet there is no evidence whatsovever to prove with certainty the accuracy of any of the scriptures as original teachings of the Buddha. Probability maybe, correlation maybe, but nothing incontrovertible.

I'ts the old and very tired assertion that no Mahayana scripture comprises Buddhadharma directly derived from a Buddha, and is therefore either invalid or inferior.

I don't want to revisit the many discussions on this, but teachers must find a way to present the Dharma without this bias:

Theravada practitioners may scorn the Mahayana scrioptures as not being the Buddha's teachings.

Mayayana and Vajrayana may scorn the Theravada as 'Hinayana' and merely a brief prelude to the superior Mahayana.

It's time both accepted that there is no monopoly.

The problem of modern Buddhism, IMHO, is that there is too much analysis of the scriptures and too little practice.

[Astus]

Theravada practitioners may scorn the Mahayana scrioptures as not being the Buddha's teachings.
Mayayana and Vajrayana may scorn the Theravada as 'Hinayana' and merely a brief prelude to the superior Mahayana.
It's time both accepted that there is no monopoly.
The problem of modern Buddhism, IMHO, is that there is too much analysis of the scriptures and too little practice.

There is no monopoly, i.e. everyone goes on their own way and leave each other alone. That is easy to say but I don't think it's fitting the situation. It is avoiding the problem, giving up. Same with emphasising practice over discussion, it is just saying to shut up and mind your own business. Sure, there won't be a universal solution, but there are different ways of dealing with it, one of them being what you suggest. But there are people who feel the need for thinking things over, getting involved in not so mundane issues. Of course there are only a few who care about philosophy and it's normal to go along with an already existing tradition. But since the problem has been raised it might be worth the try to actually discuss it rather than to kill it with a slogan. Sure, it may involve stepping on traditional toes but there's nothing new in that.

By the way, the concept of "returning to original Buddhism" is not restricted to Theravada. Yinshun, famous Buddhist thinker of the 20th century, did just the same but based on the Chinese agamas and prajnaparamita texts. Ven. Huifeng could tell a lot about him.

[Blue Garuda]

Theravada practitioners may scorn the Mahayana scrioptures as not being the Buddha's teachings.
Mayayana and Vajrayana may scorn the Theravada as 'Hinayana' and merely a brief prelude to the superior Mahayana.
It's time both accepted that there is no monopoly.
The problem of modern Buddhism, IMHO, is that there is too much analysis of the scriptures and too little practice.

There is no monopoly, i.e. everyone goes on their own way and leave each other alone. That is easy to say but I don't think it's fitting the situation. It is avoiding the problem, giving up. Same with emphasising practice over discussion, it is just saying to shut up and mind your own business. Sure, there won't be a universal solution, but there are different ways of dealing with it, one of them being what you suggest. But there are people who feel the need for thinking things over, getting involved in not so mundane issues. Of course there are only a few who care about philosophy and it's normal to go along with an already existing tradition. But since the problem has been raised it might be worth the try to actually discuss it rather than to kill it with a slogan. Sure, it may involve stepping on traditional toes but there's nothing new in that.

By the way, the concept of "returning to original Buddhism" is not restricted to Theravada. Yinshun, famous Buddhist thinker of the 20th century, did just the same but based on the Chinese agamas and prajnaparamita texts. Ven. Huifeng could tell a lot about him.

I didn't mention the agamas with respect to his comments about interpretations and China, but I wonder if he dismisses all except the Pali. This would seem to be shooting himself in the foot if so, as it renders any supportive correlation invalid.

Asserting that the basics, or the original teachings, exclude Mahayana scriptures which assert a Buddha as their source, there is already a very shaky premise upon which to build. That may misdirect the scholarship as it assumes acceptance of one set of scriptures and the negation of another as the original teachings of Buddha Shakyamuni, and/or the superiority of those over teachings supposedly received from other Buddhas.

It also requires acceptance that returning to 'original Buddhism' means that of Shakyamuni. Therefore this negates any previous Buddhas. I would assert, somewhat tenuously, that this may encourage a belief that Dharma also only began with Shakyamuni, which would be a conclusion some may draw, as if Shakyamuni somehow invented a new truth rather than revealed a path.

[meindzai]

Identifying the original teachings with the sutras preserved in the Theravada tradition is not his idea but rather a conclusion of many scholars comparing the different texts we have.

Yes, but this requires two beliefs for those conclusions to be valid:

That the Pali Canon is accurate.
and
That the Pali Canon comprises the original teachings, and that scriptures such as the Avatamsaka Sutra are not the Buddha's words.

Yet there is no evidence whatsovever to prove with certainty the accuracy of any of the scriptures as original teachings of the Buddha. Probability maybe, correlation maybe, but nothing incontrovertible.

I'ts the old and very tired assertion that no Mahayana scripture comprises Buddhadharma directly derived from a Buddha, and is therefore either invalid or inferior.

It's the Theravada position, like it or not. Expecting Theravada teachers to start including Mahayana scriptures into their talks is actually where the sectarianism lies - not the other way around.

-M

[meindzai]

I'm not sure what you guys are getting worked up about. Perhaps you didn't listen to the talk in it's entirety.

Firstly, this is clearly a Theravada monk speaking from that perspective, so he is not, and should not, be advocating Mahayana scriptures. That's not sectarianism, that's just the rightful acknowledgement about what Theravada is about - the early teachings. It's likely he was speaking to a group with similar inclinations.

Secondly, the warnings he issued were in reference not only to Mahayana, vajrayana, etc. but also Theravada itself with regards to the commentarial tradition and Abhidhamma. He also warned about regional interpretations (japanese, chinese, burmese, sri lankan), saying that interpretations are just interpretations.

Thirdly, he did not say he discovered the truth. In fact he said "I have been struggling for many years to understand this. I don't say that I have discovered everything and I have found the real truth. But I would say that whatever I have found, I think it is correct. I may be wrong at the same time." and later "You should test what I say also. You should not take it blindly."

He's talking about problems that exist in Buddhism as it is practiced today and he has a very good point.

-M

If a person warns against the Mahayana, Vajrayana and Abhidharma and against interpretations, then his own interpretation and assertion of correctness is highly suspect, IMHO.

If he thinks his interpretation is correct then he regards it as the real truth.

You managed to leave out several key points I made in my post.

First, that he warns not just against Mahayana and Vajrayana, but Abhidhamma (note the Pali) and regional interpretations in Theravada countries including Burma and Sri Lanka.

He also specifically stated that while he believes he "thinks" he is correct, but he may be wrong. It seems that this video hit some nerve that caused a few people to jump to another interpretation, when the spirit of the talk seemed to be that for him, this was an ongoing process involving studies of the early canon, and that one should find out for themselves, and not go by his word. Somehow that got translated as "he thinks he has found the real truth" by a few posters here. Watch the video again and at no time does he say this.

-M

[Blue Garuda]

I'm not sure what you guys are getting worked up about. Perhaps you didn't listen to the talk in it's entirety.

Firstly, this is clearly a Theravada monk speaking from that perspective, so he is not, and should not, be advocating Mahayana scriptures. That's not sectarianism, that's just the rightful acknowledgement about what Theravada is about - the early teachings. It's likely he was speaking to a group with similar inclinations.

Secondly, the warnings he issued were in reference not only to Mahayana, vajrayana, etc. but also Theravada itself with regards to the commentarial tradition and Abhidhamma. He also warned about regional interpretations (japanese, chinese, burmese, sri lankan), saying that interpretations are just interpretations.

Thirdly, he did not say he discovered the truth. In fact he said "I have been struggling for many years to understand this. I don't say that I have discovered everything and I have found the real truth. But I would say that whatever I have found, I think it is correct. I may be wrong at the same time." and later "You should test what I say also. You should not take it blindly."

He's talking about problems that exist in Buddhism as it is practiced today and he has a very good point.

-M

If a person warns against the Mahayana, Vajrayana and Abhidharma and against interpretations, then his own interpretation and assertion of correctness is highly suspect, IMHO.

If he thinks his interpretation is correct then he regards it as the real truth.

You managed to leave out several key points I made in my post.

First, that he warns not just against Mahayana and Vajrayana, but Abhidhamma (note the Pali) and regional interpretations in Theravada countries including Burma and Sri Lanka.

He also specifically stated that while he believes he "thinks" he is correct, but he may be wrong. It seems that this video hit some nerve that caused a few people to jump to another interpretation, when the spirit of the talk seemed to be that for him, this was an ongoing process involving studies of the early canon, and that one should find out for themselves, and not go by his word. Somehow that got translated as "he thinks he has found the real truth" by a few posters here. Watch the video again and at no time does he say this.

-M

I disagree. You quoted his words and so it was unmistakeable. If someone thinks they are correct then they think they are right and they think they have the truth. '' I would say that whatever I have found, I think it is correct....'' You can't assert correctness and simultaneously deny it.

Of course anyone is free to disagree with him, as he says, but his assertion is clear.

If he mentions Chinese interpretations then my reference to the agamas is surely valid. I don't have to comment on all the other things he said and you quoted, just the bits which I find worthy of comment, surely. That's not being 'worked up', just selective.

Nobody has 'jumped'. I just analysed and found his words self-contradictory but typical of other gurus I have heard. In summation: 'I may not have found the truth but I believe I am right; it's up to you to decide if you believe me.' It's fair enough, I'm not attacking him for that, just not registering any surprise or finding anything new in a Buddhist teacher who has a clear preference for his own school of thought and is dismissive of others through such selectivity.

In the end, we all are free to do the same, and I don't accept his premise so can't accept that he is 'correct'. The difference is, I don't then automatically assume that I am 'correct' by my rejection of his position, whereas he seems to find himself 'correct' through the elimination of other scriptures and interpretations.

That's what I see, but not with any offence, just lack of surprise.

[Astus]

It also requires acceptance that returning to 'original Buddhism' means that of Shakyamuni. Therefore this negates any previous Buddhas. I would assert, somewhat tenuously, that this may encourage a belief that Dharma also only began with Shakyamuni, which would be a conclusion some may draw, as if Shakyamuni somehow invented a new truth rather than revealed a path.

I don't think there is disagreement on Shakyamuni being the buddha of this age and that before him any previous buddha's teaching was gone. Consequently whatever Buddhism one may talk about today started with Siddhartha Gautama and nobody else, a reason why he is called the original teacher (benshi 本師). It doesn't negate previous buddhas at all, also because Shakyamuni was the first who talked about those before him. Again, it was Siddhartha who said that he did not invent anything but rediscovered it. This makes Shakyamuni the primary common factor among all the different Buddhist traditions. As for the historical validity of any teaching, that's another matter. But again, even if we look at the different Mahayana schools what they definitely agree on as the fundamental teachings are generally what we find in the nikayas and agamas upon which all the other doctrines are built upon. So if we want to find the very basics of Buddhism, the root, the origin, we arrive at such essential tenets like the four noble truths, the noble eightfold path and dependent origination. And that is irrelevant of our view on academical research.

[meindzai]

I disagree. You quoted his words and so it was unmistakeable. If someone thinks they are correct then they think they are right and they think they have the truth. '' I would say that whatever I have found, I think it is correct....'' You can't assert correctness and simultaneously deny it.

Actually his position is the one the Buddha recommends in the Canki Sutta. It is delivered in a typical refrain form but this one is a good one to quote:

"Bharadvaja, first you went by conviction. Now you speak of unbroken tradition. There are five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. Which five? Conviction, liking, unbroken tradition, reasoning by analogy, & an agreement through pondering views. These are the five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. Now some things are firmly held in conviction and yet vain, empty, & false. Some things are not firmly held in conviction, and yet they are genuine, factual, & unmistaken. Some things are well-liked... truly an unbroken tradition... well-reasoned... Some things are well-pondered and yet vain, empty, & false. Some things are not well-pondered, and yet they are genuine, factual, & unmistaken. In these cases it isn't proper for a knowledgeable person who safeguards the truth to come to a definite conclusion, 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless."

"But to what extent, Master Gotama, is there the safeguarding of the truth? To what extent does one safeguard the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the safeguarding of the truth."

"If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth.

This I believe is the attitude that this Bhante is taking towards the teachings.

Of course anyone is free to disagree with him, as he says, but his assertion is clear.

If he mentions Chinese interpretations then my reference to the agamas is surely valid.

The Agamas are scriptures, not interpretations. So I don't think he is necessarily dismissing the Agamas. There are theravada monks who do consult them and it is believed that there are teachings left intact in the Agamas that were excluded from the Pali suttas.

I don't have to comment on all the other things he said and you quoted, just the bits which I find worthy of comment, surely. That's not being 'worked up', just selective.

Nobody has 'jumped'. I just analysed and found his words self-contradictory but typical of other gurus I have heard. In summation: 'I may not have found the truth but I believe I am right; it's up to you to decide if you believe me.' It's fair enough, I'm not attacking him for that, just not registering any surprise or finding anything new in a Buddhist teacher who has a clear preference for his own school of thought and is dismissive of others through such selectivity.

In the end, we all are free to do the same, and I don't accept his premise so can't accept that he is 'correct'. The difference is, I don't then automatically assume that I am 'correct' by my rejection of his position, whereas he seems to find himself 'correct' through the elimination of other scriptures and interpretations.

That's what I see, but not with any offence, just lack of surprise.

This is not a"guru" who has been touring around the world spreading anti-mahayana rhetoric, but a Theravada monk who is actually delivering a talk that fits perfectly well within the context of that school. I think it's been taken badly out of context.

-M

[ground]

In contrast to all the source countries of buddhism where there have been mainly stand-alone traditions today we have the precious opportunity to face the whole diversity of buddhism. This gives us the precious opportunity to extract the essence of all these different teachings and check what kind of scriptures are conveying the most direct path based not on abstract thought but on direct experience. I feel that the suttas of the pali canon represent this most direct path and actually "force" the practitioner to seek and rely on direct experience whereas later scriptures appeal mostly to intellect in the first place in that they foster investigation about existence, outer and inner, reality as such, buddhahood as such and so on.
Therefore the Buddha that appears in the suttas of the pali canon appears as if being the ideal bodhisattva: he teaches the direct path to lead beings to nirvana. He does not teach them "You have to become like me" but he teaches them what a real bodhisattva would teach beings: How to quickly end samsara.


Kind regards

[Tatsuo]

I feel that the suttas of the pali canon represent this most direct path and actually "force" the practitioner to seek and rely on direct experience whereas later scriptures appeal mostly to intellect in the first place in that they foster investigation about existence, outer and inner, reality as such, buddhahood as such and so on.

Have you read all later sutras to be able to make that claim, that they all "appeal mostly to intellect"? The Mahayana Sutras, also offer a direct path to enlightenment. Take for example the Pure Land sutras, with which you can achieve enlightenment in the next life instead of seven lives, which is a goal for many Theravadins (stream-entry).

[lojong1]

So the problem of modern buddhism is that the proposed solutions are sometimes defended without being fully tested?
Punnaji is not finished testing yet. I've barely begun.
We all have heard instruction, from sources we trust, on what to do in a situation like this. If it ain't working, maybe time for a change?

[retrofuturist]

Excellent posts, Astus. Well said.



FWIW, I'm one of the type of Buddhists this monk refers to... my interest is in whatever the Buddha actually taught, and not so much on what subsequent followers of any tradition taught, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana. Commentary is commentary regardless of who made the comment... but more importantly, does it accord with what the Buddha taught, be it found in agama or sutta?

It's certainly not a sectarian position - if anything, it's deliberately non-sectarian, since that which makes any sect a sect is that which is a development to, or deviation from, the teachings of the Teacher and I'm inclined to steer away from developments or deviations, believing that if it were important in the spiritual path, the Buddha would have taught it (as per the Simsapa Sutta). That's just me though - others can do what they like.

Maitri,
Retro.

[Blue Garuda]

Well, as you say, we will all take the path we see as true and 'correct'. When a teacher asserts that he is correct it is of course of more importance, as his teachings will be based upon that and affect his disciples.

I'm actually OK with the idea that all records of Shakyamuni's teachings became interpretations as soon as they passed through the minds and mouths of others, so I don't hold Pali suttas or Agamas as especially 'original'.

If people hold those teachings as uniquely 'original' and a path based upon them as 'correct' for them that's fine.

But teachings revealed and written down just a few decades later, or revealed a hundred years later, are no less 'original' if the authors deemed them to come from Shakyamuni or indeed another Buddha. As with the suttas and agamas, there are often multiple versions of such later texts as well, so corroboration within contemporaneous versions in difefrent languages is not evidence of accurate original transliteration and perfect oral tradition IMHO.

Those practitioners following scriptures revealed later than the Pali scriptures tend to accept the Pali also. I have no idea why some of those accepting the Pali scriptures reject later revelations as less valid, but they are of course entitled to do as they wish.

The trouble with modern Buddhism from my perspective is that at times we are presented with too much choice and potential for increased doubt about the schools followed, rather than focusing on the teachings and our practice. In the end, we seek the same outcome, so I'll bow out of this discussion and avoid causing any further discomfort.

sabbe sattā sukhi hontu