Comparing classical and secular Buddhism

thumbnail
CJMacie, modified 8 Years ago at 5/1/15 4:19 AM
Created 8 Years ago at 5/1/15 4:15 AM

Comparing classical and secular Buddhism

Posts: 856 Join Date: 8/17/14 Recent Posts
(using this category as general purpose media / press?)

In the new, the very last issue of "Inquiring Mind" (Westcoast vipassana quarterly since 1984), publishes an article (page 20ff) by Bhikkhu Bodhi: "Facing the Great Divide" -- a comparison / contrast of classical and secular Buddhism.

Also in this issue -- articles / interviews by/with: Joseph Goldstein, Gil Fronsdal, Jack Kornfield, Ayya Tathaaloka, Vincent Horn, and others...
Top
thumbnail
CJMacie, modified 8 Years ago at 5/1/15 5:58 AM
Created 8 Years ago at 5/1/15 5:53 AM

RE: Comparing classical and secular Buddhism

Posts: 856 Join Date: 8/17/14 Recent Posts
Inquiring Mind has a website:

http://www.inquiringmind.com/

The entire contents of the new issue aren't there (yet), but the table of contents with blurbs is there. Eventually I think their stuff is to be digitalized.

I will check with them about getting, or keying-in myself the article by Vincent Horn:

"Buddhism in the Internet Age
Buddhist Geek Vincent Horn describes his vision of virtual, cloud-based, techno-enhanced sanghas."

I'm not sure how much of what he presents there is new, or perhaps already aired in bgeeks, or DhO. If it's not old-hat stuff, and no-one else does it, I might start a thread here to discuss, critique some of the perspectives he offers.
Top
thumbnail
Nicky, modified 8 Years ago at 5/1/15 8:00 AM
Created 8 Years ago at 5/1/15 7:51 AM

RE: Comparing classical and secular Buddhism

Posts: 484 Join Date: 8/2/14 Recent Posts


The teachings attributed to the Buddha state without any ambiguity the Buddha-Dhamma is to be experienced and verified by each insightful person for themself. It invites inspection. Sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi. So how can the unverifiable superstition called "Classical Buddhism" conform to Buddha-Dhamma? emoticon
Top
thumbnail
CJMacie, modified 8 Years ago at 5/1/15 1:34 PM
Created 8 Years ago at 5/1/15 1:34 PM

RE: Comparing classical and secular Buddhism

Posts: 856 Join Date: 8/17/14 Recent Posts
Mr Nicky, that's trolling in this context -- deliberate provocation.  Go start you own thread to continue that.
Top
thumbnail
PP, modified 8 Years ago at 5/1/15 2:21 PM
Created 8 Years ago at 5/1/15 2:21 PM

RE: Comparing classical and secular Buddhism

Posts: 376 Join Date: 3/21/12 Recent Posts
5 pragmatic benefits of the totally unrealstic model of Buddhahood

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5222463?_19_redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dharmaoverground.org%2Fweb%2Fguest%2Fdiscussion%2F-%2Fmessage_boards%2Fsearch%3F_19_advancedSearch%3Dfalse%26_19_keywords%3Dpragmatic%2Bdharma%26_19_threadId%3D0%26_19_breadcrumbsMessageId%3D0%26_19_searchCategoryId%3D0%26_19_delta%3D20%26_19_resetCur%3Dfalse%26_19_breadcrumbsCategoryId%3D0%26_19_cur%3D5%26_19_redirect%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.dharmaoverground.org%252Fweb%252Fguest%252Fdiscussion%252F-%252Fmessage_boards%252Frecent-posts%26_19_andOperator%3Dtrue

Daniel Ingram on video talking about hardcore dharma (video links at the last post)

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/1849962?_19_redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dharmaoverground.org%2Fweb%2Fguest%2Fdiscussion%2F-%2Fmessage_boards%2Fsearch%3F_19_advancedSearch%3Dfalse%26_19_keywords%3Dpragmatic%2Bdharma%26_19_threadId%3D0%26_19_breadcrumbsMessageId%3D0%26_19_searchCategoryId%3D0%26_19_delta%3D20%26_19_resetCur%3Dfalse%26_19_breadcrumbsCategoryId%3D0%26_19_cur%3D6%26_19_redirect%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.dharmaoverground.org%252Fweb%252Fguest%252Fdiscussion%252F-%252Fmessage_boards%252Frecent-posts%26_19_andOperator%3Dtrue


Top
thumbnail
Daniel M Ingram, modified 8 Years ago at 5/2/15 3:41 AM
Created 8 Years ago at 5/2/15 3:41 AM

RE: Comparing classical and secular Buddhism

Posts: 3268 Join Date: 4/20/09 Recent Posts
Something is off with your links.
Top
thumbnail
PP, modified 8 Years ago at 5/2/15 9:49 AM
Created 8 Years ago at 5/2/15 9:47 AM

RE: Comparing classical and secular Buddhism

Posts: 376 Join Date: 3/21/12 Recent Posts
Thanks! Those links came out of a search, probably that's why they didn't work. Here are the correct ones:


5 pragmatic benefits of the totally unrealstic model of Buddhahood

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5202939

Daniel Ingram on video talking about hardcore dharma (the links to vimeo that work at the end of the thread)

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/1849962
Top
thumbnail
CJMacie, modified 8 Years ago at 5/2/15 7:08 AM
Created 8 Years ago at 5/2/15 6:57 AM

RE: Comparing classical and secular Buddhism

Posts: 856 Join Date: 8/17/14 Recent Posts
re: Pablo . P (5/1/15 12:21 PM as a reply to Chris J Macie.)
"5 pragmatic benefits of the totally unrealstic model of Buddhahood…"
Have you read Bhikkhu Bodhi's article? Is your bringing up that discussion from more than a year ago related
to how BB treats the topic?

I find it a bit disappointing how, for example in that thread, those with a stake (POV, to various degrees validated by experience) in MCTB, as a pragmatic Buddhism, become defensive, and even cross-over into offense vs attempts at reasonably even-handed comparative viewpoints.

Writing the above I was tempted to use the term "secular" as comparable to "pragmatic", but thought twice. Thinking thrice, what do people here think of that possible relationship, or possible confusion? (The former term appears in the referenced thread only at "…secular humanist yuppie idealists…")

Is that a trigger here (BB's use of "secular"), in that "pragmatic" is essentially different?

(I could understand that, less as to the terms in and of themselves, more in terms of assocations in how they're used; for instance, the "Secular Buddhist Association" (in its website and discussions) often betrays a distinctly religious, even fundamentalist attitude with regard to its tenets, particularly relative to ideas or viewpoints that might be termed more "classical".)

The motivation (for the OP of the thread) was partially due to surprise that B.Bodhi, from his obvious"partisan" background, so to speak, would take on such an issue, and, in my view, handle it in an interesting manner. I would have thought at least worth looking at in this forum. And the reactions worth looking at too, in case any arise. (The kind of reactivity manifest in the troll addressed below being not that interesting.)

re: Nicky (5/1/15 6:00 AM as a reply to Chris J Macie. )
"…So how can the unverifiable superstition called "Classical Buddhism" conform to Buddha-Dhamma?"
What points in Bhikkhu Bodhi's article and description of "Classical Buddhism" are you specifically referring to? (Dependant Origination/Arising is not mentioned there.)

re: Nicky (5/2/15 2:01 AM as a reply to Chris J Macie.)
"Many are unable to accept or even consider the reality that famed scholars such as Bhikkhu Bodhi and Analayo often do not understand [Nicky's view of] Buddhism."
Your beliefs are off-topic here, and when they become repetive rants are simply boring, particularly as you bring up such things repeatedly to hijack others' threads of discussion. Again, start your own threads, and carry-on with those who concur with your beliefs, or those willing to bicker about them.
Top
thumbnail
PP, modified 8 Years ago at 5/2/15 3:12 PM
Created 8 Years ago at 5/2/15 3:12 PM

RE: Comparing classical and secular Buddhism

Posts: 376 Join Date: 3/21/12 Recent Posts
Chris J Macie:
Have you read Bhikkhu Bodhi's article? Is your bringing up that discussion from more than a year ago related
to how BB treats the topic?

I find it a bit disappointing how, for example in that thread, those with a stake (POV, to various degrees validated by experience) in MCTB, as a pragmatic Buddhism, become defensive, and even cross-over into offense vs attempts at reasonably even-handed comparative viewpoints.

Writing the above I was tempted to use the term "secular" as comparable to "pragmatic", but thought twice. Thinking thrice, what do people here think of that possible relationship, or possible confusion? (The former term appears in the referenced thread only at "…secular humanist yuppie idealists…")

Is that a trigger here (BB's use of "secular"), in that "pragmatic" is essentially different?

(I could understand that, less as to the terms in and of themselves, more in terms of assocations in how they're used; for instance, the "Secular Buddhist Association" (in its website and discussions) often betrays a distinctly religious, even fundamentalist attitude with regard to its tenets, particularly relative to ideas or viewpoints that might be termed more "classical".)

The motivation (for the OP of the thread) was partially due to surprise that B.Bodhi, from his obvious"partisan" background, so to speak, would take on such an issue, and, in my view, handle it in an interesting manner. I would have thought at least worth looking at in this forum. And the reactions worth looking at too, in case any arise. (The kind of reactivity manifest in the troll addressed below being not that interesting.)

Chris, haven't read the article. And I'm afraid I can't add anything new to the topic. But found that thread and Daniel's Cheetah talk to be quite interesting and thought it would help you to elaborate your own thoughts.

IMO, digging up old threads is a resource really not used nowadays. And given the current state of DhO, where most stream enterers and up are gone, I would rather read them than starting a new thread. Not a critic to you, just my opinion.
Top
thumbnail
Dream Walker, modified 8 Years ago at 5/2/15 3:49 PM
Created 8 Years ago at 5/2/15 3:49 PM

RE: Comparing classical and secular Buddhism

Posts: 1681 Join Date: 1/18/12 Recent Posts
Pablo . P:
And given the current state of DhO, where most stream enterers and up are gone

It's not that they are gone Pablo, it's a matter of signal to noise ratio. The majority of current conversations do not tend to draw in those with paths. The people who are serious about diligent practice are mostly doing practice with a few pointed questions to improve thier practise. Often there are additional conversations going on in the background on skype and google hangouts that are fruitful and thus it does tend to keep some good conversations from happening on the dharmaoverground. This is unfortunate in that it lowers the signal and allows noise to be increased (given that the goal is actually path related). Theads that are purly speculative and argumentative in nature and have little to do with good practise and progress are abundant but there is still quality to be found and the better the questions the more it draws in those with direct expereince and interest in such things.
~D
Top
thumbnail
Ryan J, modified 8 Years ago at 5/2/15 7:52 PM
Created 8 Years ago at 5/2/15 7:51 PM

RE: Comparing classical and secular Buddhism

Posts: 121 Join Date: 2/19/14 Recent Posts
+1 (Since we don't have a like function.) 

I simply want want to say as a person who's currently practicing intensively, I view posting on here and debating like mission creep. Anyone who is invested in a massive project of any kind must have the skills to avoid mission creep on an individual level at the risk of failing to complete the project. In this case, meditation goals such as concentration, heart meditations, fruitions, and so forth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_creep
Top
thumbnail
Ryan J, modified 8 Years ago at 5/2/15 8:33 PM
Created 8 Years ago at 5/2/15 8:28 PM

RE: Comparing classical and secular Buddhism

Posts: 121 Join Date: 2/19/14 Recent Posts
Since Chris Macie does not seem to be a fan of MBSR, this is not a jab at that but my legitimate sentiments that I have arrived at over time:

The meditation community I practice with in person is an MBSR teacher, among other things. I'm not joking when I say going to this guy and chatting with him and belonging to that community bears more fruit for my practice than the current DhO. Think about that, I get better meditation advice and more welcome at a so called mushroom culture ground zero than I do here, that leads to an instinctual hesitation to post here. That's rather ironic considering much of the motivation of establishing the DhO was in reaction to that culture. (Any question I have is always archived sometime in 2009-2011 anyways, making asking it redundant.)
Top
thumbnail
CJMacie, modified 8 Years ago at 5/2/15 8:59 PM
Created 8 Years ago at 5/2/15 8:57 PM

RE: Comparing classical and secular Buddhism

Posts: 856 Join Date: 8/17/14 Recent Posts
Ryan Kenneth Johnson: Since Chris Macie does not seem to be a fan of MBSR, this is not a jab at that but my legitimate sentiments that I have arrived at over time:

Not 'fanatic' about it, but it certainly has its place and has helped many people.

The meditation community I practice with in person is an MBSR teacher, among other things. I'm not joking when I say going to this guy and chatting with him and belonging to that community bears more fruit for my practice than the current DhO.

Excellent. Personal interaction in teaching-learning is / has always been the best route. It's right there in the (old-time) basics: Buddha-Dhamma-Sangha.

Think about that, I get better meditation advice and more welcome at a so called mushroom culture ground zero than I do here, that leads to an instinctual hesitation to post here. That's rather ironic considering much of the motivation of establishing the DhO was in reaction to that culture.

DhO provides valuable alternative to VM / IM type standard fare, but believing that on-line stuff is a substitute for learning face-to-face from others who have mastery is delusional, as a general rule. Not that on-line tutoring can't work well in some cases. Anyone, for whom DhO or other on-line dharma is their sole contact / source, faces an up-hill task.
Top
thumbnail
Dream Walker, modified 8 Years ago at 5/3/15 12:39 AM
Created 8 Years ago at 5/3/15 12:39 AM

RE: Comparing classical and secular Buddhism

Posts: 1681 Join Date: 1/18/12 Recent Posts
Chris J Macie:
believing that on-line stuff is a substitute for learning face-to-face from others who have mastery is delusional, as a general rule. Not that on-line tutoring can't work well in some cases. Anyone, for whom DhO or other on-line dharma is their sole contact / source, faces an up-hill task.
On-line stuff has been my primary source of information about what good practice entails (mostly MCTB ). The practice itself has been the real work. As a general rule there are many more people doing the face to face thing so by quantity I would agree with you. I have no way to judge the up hill task as this is the only way I have done it. 
I do wish there was a teacher locally who was open and had the skills to teach mastery of the dharma from first hand experience. They seem rare, and even if I had access to one ....well, I'm still the one sitting on the cushion, so it's still up to me to do the work.
~D
Top
thumbnail
Ryan J, modified 8 Years ago at 5/3/15 1:12 AM
Created 8 Years ago at 5/3/15 1:02 AM

RE: Comparing classical and secular Buddhism

Posts: 121 Join Date: 2/19/14 Recent Posts
Having access to both some of the best teachers in the world in person and online information, I would have to back up the notion that I think that practice so dominates the landscape of meditation that I don't know how much difference it makes if you've got a sufficient inner honesty, so to speak.

To give an example, learning proof based mathematics has an unbounded amount of little things to learn. It has so many moving parts, and just keeps going in terms of learning more moving parts. Meditation seems to not have nearly as many moving parts as a field like computer science, or even marketing. It's like, 90% of the advice can essentially be boiled down to:

1) Pay attention to some permutation of the sensate field
2) Surrender

Thats a gross simplification, but meditation just doesn't seem to have the same learning complexities, and thus it's something that you can go very far solo, whereas learning to do proof based mathematics needs a metric fuckton of hand holding. I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself right, but even with world class teachers, they never tell me anything I don't already know and am acting upon. But maybe that's because of the greatly limited role protestant capitalistic postmodern secular skeptical cultural forces have put on teachers, so they can't do more. If you throw magic into the mix, things get complicated, but that's just not going to happen for the mainstream.

Teachers seem to fulfill the following sentence I found from one of the greatest mathematicians terry Tao's blog on career advice: "Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer but wish we didn't." -Erica Jong

Teachers seem to mainly tell us the obvious, superficially and deeply.
Top
thumbnail
PP, modified 8 Years ago at 5/3/15 12:40 AM
Created 8 Years ago at 5/3/15 12:40 AM

RE: Comparing classical and secular Buddhism

Posts: 376 Join Date: 3/21/12 Recent Posts
Didn't know about that, thanks for the data D. Good to know they haven't abandon totally the place.
Top
thumbnail
Nicky, modified 8 Years ago at 5/2/15 3:37 PM
Created 8 Years ago at 5/2/15 3:33 PM

RE: Comparing classical and secular Buddhism

Posts: 484 Join Date: 8/2/14 Recent Posts
Chris J Macie:
re: Nicky (5/1/15 6:00 AM as a reply to Chris J Macie. )
"…So how can the unverifiable superstition called "Classical Buddhism" conform to Buddha-Dhamma?"
What points in Bhikkhu Bodhi's article and description of "Classical Buddhism" are you specifically referring to? (Dependant Origination/Arising is not mentioned there.)

re: Nicky (5/2/15 2:01 AM as a reply to Chris J Macie.)
"Many are unable to accept or even consider the reality that famed scholars such as Bhikkhu Bodhi and Analayo often do not understand [Nicky's view of] Buddhism."
Your beliefs are off-topic here, and when they become repetive rants are simply boring, particularly as you bring up such things repeatedly to hijack others' threads of discussion. Again, start your own threads, and carry-on with those who concur with your beliefs, or those willing to bicker about them.

Since the article is not accessible on my internet, I can only assume Bhikkhu Bodhi is engaged in a boring anti-non-reincarnation rant. Can you provide a link to the article?

The right view of Buddhism is found in the Pali scriptures (which are contrary to BB's views).

Pristine Buddha-Dhamma is "secular", i.e., "here-&-now".

Where as the views of BB are the same as the views of Mara since BB believes "birth" and a "being" is a physical body.  emoticon

Compare the views of BB and Mara, to discern how they are essentially the same.

Mara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in the bhikkhuni Vajira, desiring to make her fall away from concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse:

Where is the maker of the being?
Where has the being arisen?
Where does the being cease?

Then it occurred to the bhikkhuni Vajira: "Now who is this that recited the verse — a human being or a non-human being?" Then it occurred to her: "This is Mara the Evil One, who has recited the verse desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in me, desiring to make me fall away from concentration."

Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him in verses:

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

~~SN 5.10

Now let us take as our own starting point of explanation, the present existence in which we are living now. This starts with the third factor, consciousness. Our life is a stream of experience in which consciousness is the fundamental factor. Life begins at conception with a moment of consciousness and consciousness continues all the way through the course of one existence right up to the moment of death. Now the question comes up: What are the conditions that brought us into this present existence? From where does consciousness arise? Where have we come from? Have we come into being just by chance? Have we come into being through the will of some creator God? This is made clear through the teaching on dependent arising. The Buddha explains that our present life is the result of our past life


Bhikkhu Bodhi http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/presentLife.htm
Top
thumbnail
Nicky, modified 8 Years ago at 5/2/15 4:18 AM
Created 8 Years ago at 5/2/15 3:48 AM

RE: Comparing classical and secular Buddhism

Posts: 484 Join Date: 8/2/14 Recent Posts
Chris J Macie:
Mr Nicky, that's trolling in this context -- deliberate provocation.  Go start you own thread to continue that.

Take Dependent Origination, for example. Bhikkhu Bodhi's views about it appear certainly contrary to the Pali scriptures and appear to certainly misrepresent (slander) the Tathagatha about it.

Can we find a Pali scripture that supports the view of Bhikkhu Bodhi that the Buddha explains Dependent Origination as distributed over three successive lives?

The Pali scriptures appear to explain that birth, aging & death both arise and cease when the eye sees a form, when the ear hears a sound, etc. The Pali scriptures appear to explain that birth, aging & death are the birth, aging & death of the idea of 'being' or 'identity', which is merely a mental state or thought construct. 

It follows the secular view of Dependent Origination has far greater merits (since it can be verified via meditation) and the 'Classical' (Commentarial) view far less merits (since it cannot be verified via meditation).  emoticon

And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, entering, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance ('semblence') of aggregates & appropriation of sense spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth. SN 12.2

Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, feeling, perception, mental formations and/or consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being'. SN 23.2

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found
~~Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being'.

SN 5.10



To clarify the working of the twelve factors the Buddha explains them as distributed over three successive lives. They can be applied to any three lives in sequence. If we take the main portion from consciousness through existence (No 3 -10) as applying to the present life, the first two factors pertain to the past life, to the immediately preceding life, and the last two factors, birth, and ageing, and death, represent the next life, our future existence. The Buddha explains that our present life is the result of our past life. We have come into being on account of our own ignorance and volitions in the past. Thereafter in this present life, through our craving and attachment, through our actions or karma, we set rolling the forces that bring about a new existence in the future, new birth followed by ageing and death, thus the process of becoming is repeated over and over again.

~~Patticca Samuppada - By Bhikkhu Bodhi http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/presentLife.htm

Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata.

AN 2.23

The word "birth" refers to the arising of the mistaken idea "I," "myself". It does not refer to physical birth, as generally supposed. The mistaken assumption that this word "birth" refers to physical birth is a major obstacle to comprehending the Buddha's teaching

Bhikkhu Buddhadasa - Another Kind of Birth
Top

Breadcrumb