In my last post I called "Buddhism" an "approach to religion." I've been thinking about this subject for several years now and I'll try to explain what I mean. The result may be more questions than answers.
Naturally it is absurd to say that Buddhism isn't any of a number of religions. The list is dazzling and the examples as different from each other as night and day. Worse, Buddhism is also present in non-Buddhist religions and those religions interpolate into each regions distinctive form of Buddhism.
My own fundamentalism has led me (through such folks as Dharma Jim and others) to believe that Buddhism was never meant to operate as a competitor to existing religions -- except where those religions contradict good sense and good ethics. At least not in the usual way. Brahmins did stop being brahmins when they converted, but they didn't really stop being Brahmins, they just joined a Sangha / body/ family of equals. The Sangria of buddhism began to flow in their veins. Confucianists were sometimes Buddhists, and sometimes Buddhists were also Confucianists. Bon and Tibetan Buddhism are interpolated. The Sangria of buddhism is something special. But what is it?
Is that Sangria all that different from things called "Buddhism" to things not called Buddhism? Did Buddhism really disapear from India when the Hindus drove out the Buddhists? Is Buddhism completely gone in Afghanistan -- and if so why? Are not distinctly Buddhist ideas part and parcel of religions as varied as Confucianism and Hinduism to this day? What makes the distinction between something that is orthodoxly Buddhist and something that is not? Why be upset that "Buddhism" is or isn't? What is distinctively Buddhist about Buddhism?
I think anyone who has read about or experience Samadhi (or at least it's lesser manifestations) pretty much can concede that it is a universal experience. And anyone who reads Sufi teachings, Kaballah, etceteras... sees obvious Buddhist ideas coursing through them. So I believe that our task, is to try to figure out what is essentially Buddhist in our "Buddhism" and bring it to our friends and relatives in a positive way that they can accept.
This is a kind of "Shakubuku" when applied to Buddhism -- straitening out the twisted. And a kind of "Shoju" when applied to the rest of society -- but it is also a project for ourselves.
One thing that I can say is that the Buddhism is not just meditation. Meditation predates Buddhism. Buddhism is not just technique for achieving Samadhi, nor is it just breathing exercises. It is not "merely" a paganist religion. Nor is it the worship of the founder, Shakyamuni. It is not just monasticism. Monasticism has mutated into Universities and Bureaucracies, and is something most people don't have time for.
No, to me what is distinctly Buddhism is the supremely logical and yet religious and deeply awakened sensibility that I see as essential Buddhism. To me this was epitomized by teachers such as Shakyamuni, Dengyo, Nichiren and to some extent by all the models I can find, including "non Buddhist" ones like Mohandis Ghandi. To make distinctions between that is within the scope of human enlightenment and awakening and that which is not is to differentiate between what is Buddhist (within the "scope" of the Buddhist project) and what is not.
The project is the "awakening." Until that project is finished, Buddhism must continue.
Chris
Posted by cholte at January 15, 2006 12:24 AM