rjkjp1 wrote:

> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Piya Tan <libris@...> wrote:
> > > Some living teachers and scholars are in the midst of clearing the trees to see
> the
> > woods. The light of the Buddha is beginning to shine through more brightly for
> many
> > of us thanks to such efforts.
> >
> > Sukhi
> >
> > Piya
> > =====
> Dear Piya,
> You've written about the wood and trees a few times: could you let us
> know what you are talking about.
> Robert

Dear Robert,

So much is being said and done in the name of Buddhism, that they often confuse more
than awaken. This problem becomes more acute when one's ideas, confused or confusing
or not, easily gets post on the Internat or published through the mass media. And if
has some wealth at one's command, then this tool (or meme as some call it) becomes
even more enticing and convincing to the masses.

Edward Conze, in his History of Buddhism, conveniently divides Buddhist history into
four 500-year periods:
500-0 BCE: Early Buddhism
0-500 CE: Mahayana
500-1000: Tantra and Chan
1000-2000: Modern Buddhism

Let us accept his categories just for the sake of my argument. The 1st 500 years
would then be charaterized by the Arhat; the second 500 by the Bodhisattva; the third
by the Siddhi. Conze's fourth period (1000 years) can be again conveniently divided
into two 500-year periods: the fourth 500 then would be dominated by Buddhism slowly
reaching the west, and when we see Buddhism being discovered by the west and moulded
into as Protestant Buddhism, reflecting a reaction against one of the ancient roots
of colonialism, Christianity, which ironically strongly influences Buddhism then. The
"archetype" would be the white Buddhist.

We are now living, as it were, in the fifth 500 years of Buddhism, in a global
village of better communication and the internet. If one of the main reason for
Buddhism's early success as a missionary religion was the efforts of the merchants
and entrepreneurs (who travelled to Silk Road to China, for example), then today they
clearly play the same vital role. To be more exact, I would call this influential
class the sresthi (from Pali se.t.thi).

Buddhism in urban communities is today generally controlled and shaped by successful
executives, usually university-trained with surplus income and time. (No gripes here,
only an observation.) They are the once who decide which monks, nuns or teachers
should address their public or give teachings, and who are worthy of following. In
many cases, such sresthis make wise choices for the good of the many.

Now, we can say that Buddhism is a free market religion, and as in any free market
situation, the media often confuses or try to confuse the message in its attempt to
win a large or largest market, or simply to gain attention. We see all kinds of
postings in the name of Buddhism on the net: there is even one who openly calls
himself "Sotapanna so-and-so"!

In the bookshops too we see walls of "Buddhist" books peddling all sorts of claims.
(Interestingly most of thes books I see in the city bookstores here are Vajrayana and
Zen: looks like Huineng enthusiasts have slowed down in their book-burning!) But how
many trees have died for words here.

Yet, the simple awakening truth is best received from a living practitioner.

My point is that spiritual friends or Dharma peers are vital in our journey to
awakening: book are just toys for the mind (useful insofar as do "distract" the mind
from other distractions). And we should not merely try to knock others down because
we think we know better, when the reality is that we have serious personal issues and
social shortcomings.

There are simple teachings and simple teachers, hearing which and hearing whom, or
just being in their presence, one simply desires to be good, to live the good life.
(Here "simple" has the sense of "happy and wise"; "good" means "wholesome.")

As I go deeper into the early Buddhist texts (mostly Pali), I am quite convinced that
the Buddha and the early monks lead beautifully simple spiritual lives. Teachings and
teachers are immediately available, the teachers are saints, and the teaching
liberating.

Religious ceremonies are minimal then. There are no Buddha images nor relic worship,
surely not amongst the early saints. However, with the passing of the Buddha, many
have been trying to replacing a living truth with rituals, dogmas, structures, and
gurus (both in the West and in the East).

I think, too, that this is what polemical literature like the Lotus Sutra is trying
to teach: that we need to use the teaching for awakening ourselves and others, and to
translate our compassion into deeds. But what has happened to the Lotus Sutra? Iit
has become a Bible to some Buddhist sects; or it is used to triumphally bashing
others who think differently.

Some months ago, one of my students told me that a young local monk in his public
talk claimed that Theravada is Hinayana because it only teaches dependent arising,
but not the four noble truths, which is found only in Mahayana! Gasp! A dinosaur
roams our midst! Perhaps this is an exceptional case of serious lack of basic
Buddhist schooling, but I am not so sure.

However, my main point is that we should present Buddhism as clearly and as simply as
possible, like those in the early suttas (yes the lowly hiinayaana suttas: I love
them). This may sound fundamentalist of sorts (I love the fundamentals), but I am not
saying we should do away with other forms of Buddhism: not at all, as many need those
kinds of approaches. Yet I also meet those who outgrow such needs and look beyond
their noses.

I am joyfully working for and with such seekers, and I know there are many others
doing the same.

For serious practitioners, the Dharma becomes simpler and more personal as we
progress (in the sense one begins to see things more clearly for oneself). This is
what connects one to other practitioners.

We have today many good English-speaking teachers, mainly from the forest tradition
(such as the forest monks of Ajahn Chah, and Ven Nyanananda of Sri Lanka), who give
clear and simple teachings truly pointing directly to the truth, like lamps in the
dark, and they are also living examples of what they teach.

We now have access to better edited ancient texts (Pali, Agamas, Chinese translations
etc) and better critical tools, that we are in a better position to come closer to
what the Buddha teaches.

We need not journey thousand of kilometres across deserts and strange lands (or fly
over oceans) to look for the authentic texts: they are easily available in books, in
libraries and at the touch of the computer keyboard. In our own times, some like the
modern "critical Buddhists" of Japan even claim that sects like the Zen, the Amitabha
schools, etc are "not Buddhist." In a way they are right, and yet the histories of
religions clearly show that all religions evolve and change as they spread beyond
their birthplace so that locals elsewhere can connect with them.

Yet, there are some of us who wish to look for the well where the water flows from.
Why settle for water that is polluted, debris-filled, diverted and muddied when we
can journey up to the very source.

More non-Buddhists and academic specialists (especially in the field of psychology
and caring) are now studying Buddhism and doing Buddhist meditation. Perhaps in the
next millennium, even in the next generation, as the world becomes a more integrated
global village, we will see people without religious labels, many of them meditating
in peace and amicably discussing spirituality with one another (my happy memories of
Berkeley in the 1990s). Ajahn Buddhadasa's and John Lennon's "no religion" would no
more be wishful thinking.

Meantime, we have to work hard to trim the trees so that the beautful forests appear.

If you have read this far, I think you somehow care, and thanks for caring.

Sukhi

Piya