• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Religious Reform

Otherright

Otherright
Someone had asked earlier about what we'd do to reform our religion, if given the opportunity. As a Buddhist, mine were these. Any thoughts on these three?

Is there anything else in Buddhism others would see changed?

1) Delete Hindu concepts that have bleed into it.
2) Refine the moral issues of karma to only include karmic chains.
3) Redefine Western perception of reincarnation.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
1)Which concepts are you referring to? I've ended up picking up Hindu concepts without ever studying it so I'd like to hear your take.
2)I think I know what you mean there. Is that Karma that isn't necessarily deserved?
3)Don't know what you mean by Western version of reincarnation.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Someone had asked earlier about what we'd do to reform our religion, if given the opportunity. As a Buddhist, mine were these. Any thoughts on these three?

Is there anything else in Buddhism others would see changed?

1) Delete Hindu concepts that have bleed into it.
2) Refine the moral issues of karma to only include karmic chains.
3) Redefine Western perception of reincarnation.

The true religion does not need to be reformed. False religions cannot be reformed.
True worshippers worship the one true God in spirit and truth. There cannot be a multitude of different 'true' religions, all teaching doctrines that contradict one another.One must find the one true religion, the one true way to worship the only true God. Happily, God is looking for such honest-hearted persons, and draws them to himself.
 

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
Someone had asked earlier about what we'd do to reform our religion, if given the opportunity. As a Buddhist, mine were these. Any thoughts on these three?

Is there anything else in Buddhism others would see changed?

1) Delete Hindu concepts that have bleed into it.
2) Refine the moral issues of karma to only include karmic chains.
3) Redefine Western perception of reincarnation.
These all sound good.

I hate to say it, but for some people, it's best to just rid it all of metaphor from the start. The six realms, "rebirth", and even "karma" could be discarded for better terms, like "mental states" and "causality". In fact, I'm betting with a simple update of terms, Buddhism in the modern mind could be completely rejuvenated (possibly to the point where no average person would know that you're still talking about Buddhism to them).
 

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
Why reform? Why get rid of rebirth and karma and heavens and hells?
Because people take them literally. While I could debate all day about the reality of the mental heaven and hell, when you hear both terms you instinctively think of the Christian view, or something similar that speaks of a physical realm. Rebirth is fine, I guess, but it seems to get tied into reincarnation/transmigration of the soul. Again, people take it literally, and physically.

Karma is iffy. The term itself was never a cosmic tit-for-tat like western culture thinks (I cringe whenever My Name is Earl comes on). If we could retrain a majority of the world about its true meaning, there would be no reason to discard the term.
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
Why reform? Why get rid of rebirth and karma and heavens and hells?

That's a good question.

I've noticed a lot of people seem to---or want to---strip all the ancient teachings and views turn Buddhism into a form of psychology-based spiritual naturalism.

I don't understand that need.
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
Rebirth is fine, I guess, but it seems to get tied into reincarnation/transmigration of the soul. Again, people take it literally, and physically.

"Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering, and its ending." - Buddha, Samyutta Nikaya 4.400.

How do you see this, in relation to your view?
 

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
That's a good question.

I've noticed a lot of people seem to---or want to---strip all the ancient teachings and views turn Buddhism into a form of psychology-based spiritual naturalism.

I don't understand that need.
That's nearly perfectly analogous to saying "I don't see why people want to call it 'chemistry' instead of 'alchemy'". Buddhism always was psychology-based, as it was always about the mind, and how to tame and direct the mind. As for the naturalism comment, it may or may not have been. It was technically part of one of the fourteen unanswerables (or part of more than one, possibly part of all of them).

"Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering, and its ending." - Buddha, Samyutta Nikaya 4.400.

How do you see this, in relation to your view?

Did I say anything about annihilation? No? Then why are you asking?
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
That's nearly perfectly analogous to saying "I don't see why people want to call it 'chemistry' instead of 'alchemy'".
Not at all.

I just don't see why Westerners want to rob a religion of its tradition, culture and flavour for some bland idea.

Buddhism always was psychology-based, as it was always about the mind, and how to tame and direct the mind.
You mean, Buddhism has always been focused on the removal suffering? Otherwise, I disagree.

As for the naturalism comment, it may or may not have been. It was technically part of one of the fourteen unanswerables (or part of more than one, possibly part of all of them).
Which also includes Buddha not answering to the question of whether the self is or is not different from the body, to the permanence of impermanence of the world, or the existence of the One-Who-Has-Gone-Thus after death or not.

I feel this ties more into my own opinion that Buddhism focused on the removal of suffering, as opposed to discussions on the world, and therefore so no need for the Western stripping down to the bare bones. :shrug:



Did I say anything about annihilation? No? Then why are you asking?
Easy, you'll burst a blood vessel.

Simply, you said that rebirth is taken literally (implying it shouldn't be) - whereas Buddha said he did not teach annihilation of being. I asked how you view that passage.

If you want to ignore it, though, then that is fine.
 

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
Not at all.

I just don't see why Westerners want to rob a religion of its tradition, culture and flavour for some bland idea.
I didn't realize an idea was bland just because it is renamed to something easier to digest mentally. There's a reason teachers dumb down terms for their students: because what's important is communicating the meaning, not getting hung up on the words.

You mean, Buddhism has always been focused on the removal suffering? Otherwise, I disagree.
...through the mind, since everything originates in the mind.

Which also includes Buddha not answering to the question of whether the self is or is not different from the body, to the permanence of impermanence of the world, or the existence of the One-Who-Has-Gone-Thus after death or not.
Kind of pointless to discuss the distinction of the self from the body, if the self is just an illusion created by the mind.

I feel this ties more into my own opinion that Buddhism focused on the removal of suffering, as opposed to discussions on the world, and therefore so no need for the Western stripping down to the bare bones. :shrug:
I never said anything about stripping it down. I said it should be re-branded in order to be better understood. Karma as a term in western culture has been corrupted by a sense of 1:1 ratio of deed to consequence. It could be possible to alter the mindset of the majority, but it would be just as easy to rename it. Nothing lost but an untranslated term anyway. I would think the Buddha would have preferred his message be spread through the best cultural means possible.

Easy, you'll burst a blood vessel.

Simply, you said that rebirth is taken literally (implying it shouldn't be) - whereas Buddha said he did not teach annihilation of being. I asked how you view that passage.

If you want to ignore it, though, then that is fine.
Nothing is lost. It's a principle of our universe. Everything is a form, and therefore only the form can be lost. That's how I see it. Saying the Self physically transfers into a new vessel is foolish though, since the Self doesn't exist beyond an illusion.
 

Nooj

none
Because people take them literally. While I could debate all day about the reality of the mental heaven and hell, when you hear both terms you instinctively think of the Christian view, or something similar that speaks of a physical realm. Rebirth is fine, I guess, but it seems to get tied into reincarnation/transmigration of the soul. Again, people take it literally, and physically.
Maybe they're meant to be taken literally.
 

Nooj

none
If you're not certain, then I don't think you should be going around changing religions, religions that are followed by hundreds of millions of people. It's important to them.
 

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
If you're not certain, then I don't think you should be going around changing religions, religions that are followed by hundreds of millions of people. It's important to them.
If that were the case, Buddhism wouldn't exist. The Pali Canon was written a while after the Buddha's death. Regardless of how long after, there will be changes. To say that no one should change something like a religion must have a blind eye to the countless revisions (however minor) that have occurred over the millennia.
 

Nooj

none
So is it the case that you think you know what the Buddha taught, or do you think other people should believe what you want them to believe.
 

Onkara

Well-Known Member
@OP
It is egoism that wants to change religion, so that our self-identity can fit into it more comfortably or adapt it to suit us and our environment. Whether that is right or wrong, will result in endless debate, as right and wrong are themselves relative and "illusionary".
 
Last edited:

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
It is egoism that wants to change religion, so that our self-identity can fit into it more comfortably or adapt it to suit us and our environment. Whether that is right or wrong, will result in endless debate, as right and wrong are themselves relative and "illusionary".
I never said anything about good or bad, only efficiency (at least, about the main topic).
 
Top