BuddhaSoup wrote:
I've appreciated Jundo Cohen's well written responses, and the fact that he writes with a bit of flair and humor. Still, Jundo is wrong, time to time, and he was really wrong about Ajahn Brahm on this one. Ajahn Brahm is just one example of what's really right about Buddhism these days. Others, like HHDL, R. Joan Halifax, Thay, Matthieu Ricard, Taigen Leighton, Jack Kornfield, are shining example of how we can take Vinaya, the Suttas/Sutras, and integrate these well vetted and true practices that have survived nearly 3000 and bring them into the 21st century with skill and fidelity. These are but a few examples of excellent men and women in Buddhism today.
I like Ajahm Brahm, too.
From the East Asian point of view, his ordination of bhikkhunis was perfectly legitimate. There are no bhikkhunis in Theravada anymore, so as a bhikkhu he exercised his right, which is supported by canonical sources, to ordain female renunciates. Now that the lineage has been revived, the bhikkhunis may ordain their own. The women now have the freedom to run their own sangha. This was a progressive and very much necessary move. To say, however, that what he did was heretical is to ignore all the canonical sources, both in Pali and elsewhere, that gave him sanction.
The danger with western Buddhism, is that is is becoming a wolf in sheep's clothing. We challenge each other on this and other forums as to what is Buddhism, and what is not. We need not speculate, but refer only to what the Buddha actually taught. We may also properly refer to the subsequent texts and teachings, and with a sense of wisdom and skill, discern what is the Tatgatha path and what is not.
We're a very small minority all things considered, but there is much room for growth. There are a lot of charlatans running around with mistaken views and ideas, often publishing their works in print. The publishers profit from this as well, which perpetuates the whole process. Now what constitutes "mistaken" is of course subjective, but rejection of the Buddha's fundamental teachings (karma, rebirth and so on) constitutes a mistaken path. However, a lot of people nowadays, due to their education and society, are naturally inclined away from said ideas for various reasons, if not specifically because of holding by default materialist world-views.
The issue of what constitutes Buddhism is problematic even in Asia. For example here in Taiwan there is a noted amount of disregard for Tibetan Buddhism among some of the Chinese sangha because of the consort practices and images of deities coupling. In Taipei there is an organization specifically dedicated to disparaging Lamas, with a big sign on the side of one building opposite a train station saying in English and Chinese: "Tibetan Lamas are not Buddhist monks!"
At the end of the day we all are entitled to our opinions. Whatever the end result of our collective opinions and actions is remains to be seen. I imagine in a century a lot of the ideas put forth by people like Jundo or Batchelor will be largely forgotten because in sustained economic and political hardship their ideas will be both unsatisfying and unrealistic. We are facing climate change, peak oil, perpetual economic contraction and a lot of other problems that consequently follow said predicaments, which will render "spirituality sans religion" largely unsatisfying to people who are suffering and having to deal with continual grief, which traditional religion can address (it might be a palliative opiate, but it works). In such circumstances outright rejection, or even mild dismissal, of rebirth, merit and all the rituals that accompany Buddhist traditions is not going to find much support. However, traditions like those of Ajahn Brahm will probably flourish because they provide both a means to address suffering AND some kind of hope that despite all the problems we face, there is always a future life to look forward to.
That is what I foresee anyway.
Here's to the cognitive consistency of Storkest logic!
