dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
This is something I've been thinking about for awhile. Keep this in mind as you read this: not everything that takes the name of Buddhism, is Buddhism.
In Kamakura Japan, various Buddhist schools took root. Most of them were imports from China, with the notable exception of Nichiren. However, unlike in China, where, for the most part, all Buddhist schools were seen as just Buddhism, and not differentiated by various names, in Kamakura Japan, the various schools separated, and even fought amongst each other. If I remember correctly, the primary reason for the in-fighting was for government acceptance. But how much did the compassion of the Buddha come into play? The great founders of various schools during this period: Dogen, Nichiren, Honen, Shinran-all disparaged each other. Nichiren and Dogen both put down the Pure Land school. Shinran put down all other practices besides the nembutsu. And even still, these teachers watered down their own particular schools' teachings. Nichiren basically took everything about the Tendai school, and even the teachings of the Lotus sutra itself, and done away with all of it. Shinran did the same with Pure Land. Personally, I'm starting to fail to see what was so good about this period of Buddhism.
This brings me to the 19th century in the US. Two people, Madame Blavatsky and Henry Steel Olcott founded an esoteric/occult school called Theosophy. They claimed to be Buddhists, and attempted to reconcile the western esoteric schools with the teachings of Eastern religions. What they did, however, was something that was much more damaging. Fast forward about 150 years. Now, we have something in the west which, upon deeper study, is something quite frightening. We now have this new agey, wishy-washy, self-help psycho-babble form of Buddhism, which hardly represents the real thing.
Please don't get me wrong. It's my belief that a person is free to believe whatever they want. My concern is for the preservation and purity of the Buddhadharma. We have to be careful about what we accept as Buddhism. We need to remember that, just because something calls itself Buddhist, doesn't mean it is. By the same token, however, we also have to realize that just because something doesn't call itself Buddhist, doesn't mean it isn't. Buddhism can be found anywhere, even where there is no knowledge of buddhadharma.
In Kamakura Japan, various Buddhist schools took root. Most of them were imports from China, with the notable exception of Nichiren. However, unlike in China, where, for the most part, all Buddhist schools were seen as just Buddhism, and not differentiated by various names, in Kamakura Japan, the various schools separated, and even fought amongst each other. If I remember correctly, the primary reason for the in-fighting was for government acceptance. But how much did the compassion of the Buddha come into play? The great founders of various schools during this period: Dogen, Nichiren, Honen, Shinran-all disparaged each other. Nichiren and Dogen both put down the Pure Land school. Shinran put down all other practices besides the nembutsu. And even still, these teachers watered down their own particular schools' teachings. Nichiren basically took everything about the Tendai school, and even the teachings of the Lotus sutra itself, and done away with all of it. Shinran did the same with Pure Land. Personally, I'm starting to fail to see what was so good about this period of Buddhism.
This brings me to the 19th century in the US. Two people, Madame Blavatsky and Henry Steel Olcott founded an esoteric/occult school called Theosophy. They claimed to be Buddhists, and attempted to reconcile the western esoteric schools with the teachings of Eastern religions. What they did, however, was something that was much more damaging. Fast forward about 150 years. Now, we have something in the west which, upon deeper study, is something quite frightening. We now have this new agey, wishy-washy, self-help psycho-babble form of Buddhism, which hardly represents the real thing.
Please don't get me wrong. It's my belief that a person is free to believe whatever they want. My concern is for the preservation and purity of the Buddhadharma. We have to be careful about what we accept as Buddhism. We need to remember that, just because something calls itself Buddhist, doesn't mean it is. By the same token, however, we also have to realize that just because something doesn't call itself Buddhist, doesn't mean it isn't. Buddhism can be found anywhere, even where there is no knowledge of buddhadharma.
