Towards A Post-Modern Model Of Buddhism

[sabaijai]

“I’ve come to an understanding that the dharma, to be really living, vitally important, and to be a dharma that is alive and blows open the mind, has to be applied against the background of the period of history we’re living in and directed not only to the great universal problems that all humans face but also to the special over-arching problems of this historical period in which we are living.” -Bhikkhu Bodhi

[Xangsamhua]

Well worth a look - probably a couple of looks, especially to become comfortable with the diagrammatic representation of transcendent, sentient and natural domains and their relationship with each other and the notion of ascending and descending.

He is very tentative in the beginning, fearful that he'll be taken the wrong way by his (minuscule) audience or other monastics that might get wind of what he's saying, but I can't think of anything he said that seemed very radical or heterodox, perhaps apart from his comments in Part 5 (at about 6 minutes). He says here: "I take the transcendent domain to be something real in a sense". Regardless of whatever "in a sense" might mean, is he suggesting that there is a supernatural realm that transcends the realm of sentient beings and is "real" in the Platonic sense, i.e. has a form and effect that precedes any particular instances or manifestations of the transcendent realities?

I understand that he is talking about "spirituality", which he sees as aspiration to (ascending) and expression of (descending) the transcendent. Perhaps for Buddhists nirvana is the ideal and most spoken of form of transcendence, but also sunyata - "emptiness is form; form is emptiness" - when recognized as "giving rise to everything". However, in what way do Buddhists regard nirvana - cessation - or sunyata as "real"? In Platonic terms, the "real" is fundamental, irreducible and permanent, and obviously Bikkhu Bodhi is not thinking along those lines, though perhaps his initial diffidence may have been from awareness that some people may think he is.

He contrasts (at about 5.35 -5.55 in Part 5) his understanding of the relationship between the transcendent domain and that of sentience to the view of other socially engaged Buddhists (who?), who he believes dismiss the transcendent domain as irrelevant or oppressive (imposing on the sentient domain, the site in which other socially engaged Buddhists are engaged). Is this a criticism of the proposition that one can attain nirvana in the everyday world, a view put forward I believe by Thich Nhat Hanh, that one can be awakened to the absolute in the midst of the relative without letting go of either (as they are not in essence a duality)? BB was not being critical - just giving emphasis to the transcendent as something to which one ascends and from which one descends without having left it behind - rather like the Buddha, on having been awakened (ascended) agrees to descend in order to teach, but is not less awake as a result.

I like the use of pre-modern, modern and post-modern typologies to describe religion in its various contexts and would have liked him to develop this further, but he veered off into questions of spirituality instead. I thought BB was going to outline for us a postmodern form of Buddhism, but that didn't happen, and yet it is so important. It's happening, I think, to some extent, in the Engaged Buddhist communities of Thich Nhat Hanh, at least in Europe and, I suppose, the United States.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[khaowong1]

I enjoy listening to BB talk. I personally think Theravada Buddhism needs more thinkers and speakers like him.. Just my personal opinion...

[christiaan]

This is an interesting contribution. I had to look at it carefully since I could not always easily understand the English.

So maybe I di not understand everything quite well.

So here I go:

In his observation of traditional, modern and post modern world I got the impression - between the lines - he was telling: there is no future for traditional Buddhisme in the future, in a post modern world.

I think he very well explained traditional Buddhisme is all about meditation all about ascending.

The post modern future will be a future where people , freed from tradition and driven by individuality , come to more free, social interaction, without (institutionalised religion) rules and laws from outside but being inspired form inside.

Well, probably I tell the essence of his story in my words but this is what I understood out of his talk.

It was interesting to see what he considered to be sacred. It make your self think about the question: What is sacred for me?

I understood from his talk that he also was telling that it could be possible in a transcedent movement /state one also could pay attention to the descent movement/state, allthough I heard him first relate this to munks going out to teach the sentient people , by the wish of Buddha.

Later on he was explaining about finding the compassion inside to a certain aspect that breaks your heart.

That could be the aspect for a move to the descent .

He did touch the post modern Buddhisme slightly, and one could wonder why he did not choose to go more deep into this future.

But as I wrote before, to me, between the lines he was in a way telling there is no future for traditional Buddhisme in a post modern era.

I wonder if traditional Buddhisme in future will change the world, or the world will change the traditional Buddhisme. In fact i am sure the last will happen.

In my view Buddhisme is already 'modernised' and transformed in the west, as the societies, transforming from traditional through modern to post modern, like Bhikkhu Bodhi is explaining about , are western societies. It is a pitty Thailand is still is not a part of that. Thailand in the essence still is a very traditional country where people still have to individualise and become free.

.