This was an enjoyable read.

It seems Buddhism has followed the same path as any other religion/practice of the same age.

I imagine that today's Christianity doesn't look much like it did in 500AD, just as I imagine Scientology in 1,000 years will have evolved.

Is this a bad thing? Does religion not represent our perception of the meaning of life, evolving with us as knowledge, wisdom and tolerance (or lack thereof) is passed through the generations?

▲

_fw 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The teachings of the Buddha explicitly encouraged it. Buddhism is the only religion I know of that instructs you to fully abandon it, as once you’ve fully grokked what it has to teach… you won’t need it any more.

IIRC the Buddha said it was like carrying the oar of a boat: once you have used it to get you to your destination (nibbhana), carrying it is needless.

	▲	gavmor 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, puriso mahato udakassa ... ‘yan-nūnāhaṃ tiṇakaṭṭhapaṇṇaṃ saṅkhaṇiyaṃ saṅkhaṇeyyaṃ, tenañ-ca mahaudakaṃ abhinaveyyaṃ hatthipādena vā aṅgapādena vā ... Atha kho so puriso taṃ kulhiraṃ āropetvā pāre gaccheyya. Tam-enaṃ loko ‘kiṃsu, bho, karissati kulhirena pāraṃ gato’ti? Evaṃ, bhikkhave, dhammaṃ desitaṃ ājānāsi: ‘pāraṅgamanaṃ dhammaṃ, anupagamma dhamma’ti. > सेय्यथापि भिक्खवे पुरिसो महतो उदकस्स ओरिमतटे ठितो एतस्मिं चत्ते ओरिमा तटा कल्लंणं भयंवरं, परमा तटा निब्बयं भयंविरं, न च नावाय संयताय न च पुल्लेन गन्तब्बं। तं किमन्तरेन। यन्नुनाहं तिणकट्ठपण्णं संकलिय च मज्झे उदकं अभिनवेन्तं हत्थिपदेन व अङ्गपदेन व तीरणं करोमि। अथ खो सो पुरिसो तिणकट्ठपण्णं संकलिय च मज्झे उदकं अभिनवेन्तो हत्थिपदेन व अङ्गपदेन व तीरणं करोति। तं पच्छा समन्ततो गन्त्वा पारे गच्छति। तं एं लोको किं नु खो करिस्सति कूल्हिरेन पारा गतो ती? एवमेव खो भिक्खवे धम्मो देशितो अजानासि। पारं गमनेन धम्मं नुपगम्म धम्मं। Alagaddūpama Sutta (MN 22) of the Majjhima Nikāya, part of the Pali Canon. (MN 22, सेय्यथापि... से अंतまで)

▲

dijksterhuis 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

i really like that shunryū suzuki quoting dogen talking about "one continuous mistake" is a complete and utter misquote.

internalised understanding, attitudes, views etc. are more important that being able to recite things from a book.