24
25

Misc.Should easterners stick with our traditional religions? (self.Buddhism)

paniniconqueso が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]AnarquistaLibretheravada -4ポイント-3ポイント  (7子コメント)

To be fair.. a lot of the Eastern parts aren't representative of true Buddhism neither. Many of it is steeped in local superstitions and mixed with older preexisting religions. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to recognize that.

[–]deathnate4仙術 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

What exactly are you referring to as 'True Buddhism' and how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion of what constitutes it? A view like this has pretty much no place from an academic perspective.

[–]AnarquistaLibretheravada 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Maybe it's a poor choice of words, but I meant pure Buddhism as originally taught without all the cultural baggage that evolved alongside it.

[–]deathnate4仙術 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I know that's what you meant, but how exactly do you know what constitutes 'pure Buddhism'? How do you know what the Buddha originally taught?

[–]grass_skirtacademic 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

A lot of what modernists imagine to be cultural baggage was actually present in the original teachings of Buddhism, at least as far as historians are able to determine.

[–]cyanocobalamin 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not sure I would agree with that. Those parts may not have come from The Buddha, but if they existed for thousands of years under the label of Buddhism, for people growing up in Buddhism, it is Buddhism to those people.

[–]RoaminRonin13non-affiliated 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

All Buddhism is "steeped in local superstitions and mixed with older preexisting religions" - especially as we understand it now, but I imagine even when the man was alive. We are all creatures of context. Failure to understand that, along with this sense that these local "superstitions", etc, make different forms of Buddhism somehow other than your supposed "true" Buddhism is condescending and culturally insensitive.

"These Asians don't even really know their own religion" is a deeply problematic stance to take, especially as we don't necessarily know what Buddhism was originally like. I know people want to cite the Pali canon as OG Buddhism, but that can't be removed from existing practices or the culture that produced it either - it's like saying the King James Bible is the word for word teachings of Jesus.

[–]AnarquistaLibretheravada 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That wasn't my intent, I wasn't trying to be culturally insensitive or condescending. Is it wrong though to talk about what pure Buddhism would be without all the cultural baggage? I'd say the popular American form of Buddhism falls into this trap too, as they try to secularize Buddhism too much.

And I'm not saying they don't know their own religion, just that they added things to it over time that may of not originally been part of Buddhism.