Unmodernising Buddhism by David Brazier

Babs _, modified 4 Years ago at 3/6/20 3:14 AM
Created 4 Years ago at 3/6/20 3:14 AM

Unmodernising Buddhism by David Brazier

Posts: 709 Join Date: 2/5/13 Recent Posts
Dharmavidya David Brazier, founder of Amidashu, hits the nail on the head,

"Modernist people are often completely cut off from their religious heart. They think in materialistic terms and lack a sense of spirit. Their world is disenchanted and they think that this is reality, whereas, in fact, it is a spiritual desert.

In a nutshell, the problem is that we have taken the bhakti out of Buddhism. We have tried to make it into a cold, clinical, secular, utilitarian, intellectual rationalism with a set of techniques that can be used as remedies for modern ills. It is not and never was like that until this modernism came along. To hear modern Buddhists, one would think that Buddha never mentioned such things as faith or devotion, yet for most Asian Buddhists throughout history faith and devotion have been precisely what Buddhism has always been about. That is bhakti. Bhakti is to throw oneself heart and soul into the hands of Buddha. It is free fall. or, at the simplest level, it is to kneel in humility, place a flower on the altar, and receive the blessing in one's heart. This is what we have lost. It is not that we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, it is that we only have bathwater and the baby has gone."


Pawel K, modified 4 Years ago at 3/6/20 4:02 AM
Created 4 Years ago at 3/6/20 3:59 AM

RE: Unmodernising Buddhism by David Brazier

Posts: 1172 Join Date: 2/22/20 Recent Posts
What Asian Buddhism teaches is not what Gautama Buddha was teaching.
He was less dismissive about supermundane aspects of reality than some, especially modern, interpretations of his teachings would suggest but it had nothing to do with what people made Buddhism to be about.

Unmodernising Buddhism should imho go as far as to not only throw cold secular modernism out of it but also to throw out everything that Buddha was not directly teaching and this would of course include all Mahayana and Vajrayana extensions. Especially all religious and devotion aspects of it.

Not that there is no value to some aspects of those religions but they do not even represent Buddha teachings so they should be clear about it rather than muddy the waters with historical politically driven assotiations with Buddhism let alone pose as the real true version of Buddhism.