It is interesting how you can find such a wide variety of practice passing under the name of "buddhism." From the intellectual approach of some, to the brand that seems to be little more than ancestor worhip and superstition. I always thought that one of the strenghts of buddhist teaching was the availability of different teachings for different audiences. After all, the struggling peasant in the field living on the edge of survival seems an unlikely candidate for the practice of sustained meditation necesssary to reach enlightenment. He or she needs comforting thoughts, not advanced lectures.

And so, the reality that some teachings will be only for a more elect few. Not that I read Nietzsche often, but an interesting line of his:

"Our highest insights must--and should--sound like stupidities and sometimes like crimes when they are heard without permission by those who are not predisposed and predestined for them...."

"Buddhism had special appeal to urban trading groups, seeking a moral rather than a communal framework for their lives." From Michael Mann's book, The Sources of Social Power.

So Buddhism appealed to persons who often dealt with people they had never met before. In a society where the ties of family and tribe had been softened, if not lost, a new vision of how society should hold together was needed. Very interesting, in a sociological sort of way.

As one who will probably be a successful Buddhist only on an ethical level (if that), this is an interesting topic. And let's face it, as the persons with the time, disposition and commitment to succeed on a higher level, that is reaching "enlightenment," are probably very few in number, the study and application of Buddhism as an ethical system is immensely important.

comments? lightsource_at_gmail.com

Much has been said and written about how buddhism appeals to westerners because of its basic compatibility with modern science. But are basic buddhist beliefs really able to fit smoothly into what science tells us to be true?

I often grapple with the path of human evolution and the human presence on Earth. Our world, and certainly the Universe, have existed for an extremely long period of time (really beyond our ability to comprehend). During this vast period of time, humans have only been on the scene for a tiny fraction.

Now, were any beings in existence before humans that had sufficient ability for self-reflection to achieve enlightenment? Could there be an enlightened being in our world before there were humans? Is enlightenment a concept that makes sense only in the context of the assumption that humans exist? Is there buddhism without enlightened beings?

Certainly the core buddhist beliefs center upon the trials of human existence, our suffering, the concept of karma placing us higher or lower in the order of living beings. Can buddhism explain the Universe in the absence of humans? Maybe you have to return to something I read somewhere: even all dharmas are impermanent.

In light of the horrible massacre of school children in Russia at the hands of muslims, it is reassuring to be reminded that there is a rational religion available to the world. Here is an interesting excerpt from a recent posting on the Buddhist News Network(the best source of current buddhist news I think). It is a nice summary of what we strive to believe in and practice:

The mercantile community had found Buddhist philosophy acceptable and suitable. Trade is a rational activity and Buddhism is a rational religion. It does not revile against the pursuit of wealth and well-being, but only urges moderation. The two gelled remarkably.

Though the members of the monastic order (Sangha) had to live a life of renunciation, they were expected to situate themselves within society. The laity is expected to live a normal life, though following the "middle path" (majjhimapatipada) and avoiding all extremes. For the Buddha, hedonistic self-indulgence as well as self-mortification or extreme denial was equally unacceptable.

In Buddhism, everything in the world is impermanent (anitta) and illusory (moha). Attachment gives rise to dissatisfaction or sorrow (dukka). "But the Buddha said that dukka could be eliminated with the development of a humane and intellectual personality through the practice of morality (sila) and meditation (Samadhi) and through a search for wisdom (panna). The realisation of dispassionateness (viraga) through this path provides complete mastery over mind and matter resulting in the ultimate cessation of the mental process or the realization of nibbana (nirvana)," Seneviratne explained.

Despite the exhortation not to have attachment to material things, Buddhism was not an otherworldly religion of self-abnegation. It only sought a realistic approach to life. The Buddhist theory of knowledge is a very progressive one. It serves as a good basis for modern scientific inquiry and indeed all-rational activity.

The Buddha wanted the truth or reality to be realised by oneself, through investigation and inquiry, and not by following what is said to have been revealed to someone, or going by tradition or a teacher's word.

"This is, in fact, a sound recipe for modern research, methodology, freedom of thought and expression," Seneviratne pointed out.