Videos I ran into that remind me of some of the unique versions of Buddhism people in the modern west (secular Buddhist, EBT, etc) “figured out” when doing their brilliant critical analyses of the texts. I find his logic very similar to the logic used to justify claims like the Buddha’s statements on rebirth and heaven/hell are intricate metaphors, the Buddha didnt really teach kasina meditation even tho they are listed in the “EBTs” such as the nikayas etc.
Another video on the appeal of these ridiculous intellectual speculations and why they tend to attract so many people. You can get people to believe in anything if you use say it confidently enough and have some kind of logic to your conclusion that sorta makes sense.
I think that much of it is “click bait” which was mentioned in one of the videos. There is some candy aspect to it when you here that some trust source might be wrong…
Hypothetical clickbait:
Is anapana different in early Chinese suttas?
What did Theravada “add” to anapana that is not found in one of the Early Buddhist Texts?
When they speak like this, it becomes click bait-ee
When they themselves start teaching they enjoy the other end. I think they are sincere, but I think they are fooled by the mara’s game.
Just after attaining the Buddhahood, the Blessed One hesitated to preach the Dhamma, thinking that “These people are desire-driven. They can hardly see the dependent-origination”.
The Saddhammapatirupaka sutta says that it is the fools inside this very sasana who end the sasana.
Even during the Lifetime of the Omniscient One, there were monks like Sati and Arittha who had grasped wrong views.
Just after the Parinibbana, Subhadda was active.
Shortly after, at the time of Second Council, the majority of sangha was Vajjiputtaka lead Mahasanghika monks who rejected the portions of Tipitaka closely similar to modern rejections.
At the time of Third Council, there were multiple groups of Adhammavadins, which demanded the Emperor’s interception.
At the time of Venerable Buddhaghosa, there were 18 nikayas, and even some of the kings of Sri Lanka were supporting Abhayagiri.
The difference between ancient and modern times seems to be that the degree of success achieved by the protectors of Theravada.
Ancient accomplished and well-versed monks knew how to react and when to react. They did not react aggressively but did employ tactics successfully .
Our Bodhisatta could choose any moment to go as a human last birth bodhisatta. He could have waited an extremely short time and reached the time we have today with internet technology for everyone to hear.
But the question is … would they really hear him even if the sound went into their ears?
Our Bodhisatta did indeed pick the right time to take his last birth.
We generally regard the new age guru who creates their own religions nowadays as unreliable and gone off the hinges. It might be possible to create a lot of arahants in the circle of the Buddha and spread outwards fast, but then there would be a lot of legal resistance, countries would be slow to recognize Buddhism as a legit religion, visas would be slow to be issued if at all. The head of states nowadays are not as easy to access as kings of old, as well as not as influential in their religious faith to influence the masses.
The vegans would critique the Buddha a lot for not going vegan, and if the Buddha made it so that the monks are vegan, it becomes another block for those who are attached to the taste of meat to want to be liberated.
Left unchecked, China would be majority Taoist, until the cultural revolution wiped it off, and Buddhism might have some chance to spread there, but looking at the attitude of Chinese government towards western religions, I think it is unlikely. Jains and many other dharmic religions might just claim Buddhism is a rip off of their religion. The modern mindfulness revolution would have to be kick-started by the Buddha himself, but I find it unlikely that the Buddha would make it secular.
The scientists around the world would be deniers when facing the miracles produced by the Buddha, and the Buddha would have no time for them to run so many tests and lab controlled experiment, he would get them to become enlightened instead.
Maybe the Buddha would be able to convert some of those billionaires who are also influencers, and many YouTubers as well. Then the dhamma might be able to get to everyone.
Once a certain minimum number of people got stream winner, it could be that the tide changes for the religion, and Buddha has to introduce thousands, tens of thousands of rules for monastics about internet etc. Nuns would be immediately accepted given the current political climate. Maybe the 8 Garudhamma may not even be established. The Buddha wouldn’t want to be risk to be labelled anti-feminist.
So many consequences to explore from this one what if the Buddha appeared in the internet age?
Very true. Much like in modern politics, a good campaigner does not necessarily make a good politician. In fact, the skill overlap is essentially nill. One can be very electable and a terrible politician, one can be a shrewd and skilled politician and an awful campaigner. No matter how skilled of a politician you are, it is mostly only the good campaigners who get elected.
A good Dhamma practitioner or Dhamma teacher does not necessarily make content that becomes best selling books or click baity/popular in the social media algorithms. Yet is only those with the skills to write books that can become best sellers or create viral content that can spread on the algorithms who are able to spread their message far and wide. Unfortunately those with those skills tend to more in the Buddha only really taught this or that because [insert made up logic here], than those who can take and apply the Buddha’s teachings as they are and explain them in a way modern humans can understand.
What kind of political climate are you exposed to?
To be fair to the suttas, if the Buddha only appear recently, and the monks are established without nuns, the women would dressed up like monks, with the robes and all that and then asked the Buddha for ordination. Given that the Buddha would be a sort of celebrity and constantly filmed by his devoted disciples, anything he says would spread around the globe. And we know that the Buddha is very sensitive to criticism on the Saṅgha. Nowadays, the patriarchy is not there, gender equality is the norm. There would be no reason for him to do the same thing as in the past 2500 years ago. He would likely just straightaway approve it.
We are not in the situation of Bhikkhuni lineage lost and cannot be re-establish, this is a what if situation of Buddha establishing the Bhikkhuni in the modern times. In DN16, Mara said he asked the Buddha to go into parinibbāna before he taught anyone, but Buddha wanted to wait until all 4 fold community of Bhikkhu, Bhikkhuni, male and female lay follower to be established first before he goes. And at 3 months before the actual parinibbāna, mara reminded Buddha of this condition and the Buddha agreed that it’s fulfilled and thus would willingly go into parinibbāna.
Thus this indicated that it’s part of the initial plan to ordain women.
The notion that “the reason of imposing Garudhammas was then existed political climate” is a mere assumption of people who have been vulnerable to modernization of views.
It is weak reasoning that contradicts the Vinaya. The reason for imposing Garudhammas has mentioned by the Blessed One in Vinayapiṭaka » Cūḷavaggapāḷi » Bhikkhunikkhandhaka.
Therefore the reason for imposing Garudhammas is that women are not suitable to ordain without Garudhamas.
Furthermore the Blessed One says even the monks of Outer religions don’t accept equality of nuns.
This is a natural fundamental that anyone sufficiently religious understands.
The reason for modernized people’s inability to understand it, is, their inherent irreligiousness i.e. their lack of intelligence.
It is true bhante. Women are not non-humans. They are suitable to ordain with Garudhammas. They can even attain Arahantship. They are our mothers and sisters.
Before the era of degeneration started, the Bhikkhuni order ended. Before the material revolution started and before the feminist ideas come into play, the Bhikkhuni order ended.
May be it is a Dhammata (Natural Law) of the Omniscient One’s dispensation.
The modern people’s reluctance to accept Garudhammas is a good proof for it.
Modern issues are a giant mess. I hold the stance similar to pa-auk. When there is a mahasangha meeting (7th council meeting), and they vote to accept bhikkhunis, then I will accept bhikkhunis.
Taking vinayakamma and vinayakamma issues into ones own hands like this is disrespectful to the maha sangha.
Main point in Garudhammas is "nuns are junior than monks". Accepting it (with other garudhammas) is what makes a woman qualified to ordain in the sasana.
It is the reason for laying down Garudhammas, and is not the Political Climate existed back then.
I think that anyone who knows nuns and how the nunneries operate, will confirm that nuns are completely different socially than monasteries. I think people forget that. They often rely on monks to settle their own issues too.
The monks who have to deal with these issues often mumble to themselves. The Buddha had the foresight.
By the current climate, I think it’s that some Bhikkhunis would ask the garudhammas to be removed, some would accept, a middle way position might be forced for monks to say that we would accept bhikkhunis if they accept the garudhammas.
Press outcome will be mixed. On the one hand they can say a victory for feminism, for official recognition, on the other hand can be defeat for still holding onto garudhamma. Saṃsāra is a mess.
Actually, I dunno, it seems that the majority of the monks are in thailand and myanmar, the 2 countries in the world left which doesn’t recognize Bhikkhunis. And maybe the monks themselves would like to support, maybe they are asked not to support.
And the sheer logistics itself is an interesting issue, we cannot just limit the council to even 10,000 monks. With the internet, theorectically, all the monks in the world can be in the council online, ongoing for months.
And maybe the longer the issue waits out, the more people would support Theravada Bhikkhuni to be valid.
Hmm… could be scary since Ajahn Sujato would be likely be an appointed tech person for that. On the other hand, I think the meeting has to be performed in a Sīma for it to be legal. Furthermore, the monks attending and voting need to be scholars in their own right in order to make critical decisions for the future Theravāda generations to come.
The funny thing is that today’s bhikkhunis are not Theravāda. They don’t claim to be and they are rooted the nonSectarian-sect who also does not like the term Theravāda applied. Ajahn Sujato who instigated much of the bhikkhuni ordinations, was all in favor of a bhikkhu ordination with 3 mahayana and 2 theravāda monks present to provide proper quorum.
How many monks can the maximum sized sīmā fit? Assuming sīmā with proper boundaries. It would be quite an effort to chant all over the whole wide area to make a valid sīmā.
Could be a few millions cost minimum to build the sīmā, maintainance of monks within it for months, also what topic can last for months? How to organize a meeting which has more than 1000 people?
It can be quite large. Anuradhapura is a sīma. Even if that pertains only to the ancient city, it is still large.
I think you are not aware of the kaba aye “cave” sīma where the 6th council was held. It will probably be there again. As you said the cost is quite expensive.
There is also a thing called a gama sīma which can be appointed by a government king. That is not an issue.
