Globalization is inevitable, “Buddhism” declining in East, but
growing in the
West, Buddhist teachers from the East , many are not groomed or
inculcated
with such western values facing a new culture and mindset have
adapted the
teachings to suit the lay masses, whereas religion as practiced in
east have
remained stagnant, owing to applying different philosophies applied
to different
compartmentalised aspects of daily living. Religion seems to most
in the
urbanising societies in western style of economy, seems more like
buying
“insurance”, just to be on the safe side. For the East inflow of
technologies, cultures also bring along beliefs too.
In our current economic atmosphere, greed is good, self interest
is of primary
importance, the difference is how we label greed. Everything is
that can
tangibly measured has a value relative to self, can traded and
accumulated
is deemed more important above everything else. Everybody wants
more
and some having more and more whereelse most are having less and
less.
There are lots of sublimal unhappiness around than before. The 3 Ks
said it all;
Kiasu, Kiasee, Kiabo.
The best solution I feel is Bhutan’s policy of “Gross National
Happiness”,
it put things into proper perspective, placing paramount importance
the
person of a human as against current important on material
gains.
However, I do not believe that the majority of the politcal
leaders
around are capable of doing it, they are simply not inculcated and
educated
to see the world this way.
Also, like it or not, existing governments exist by public
acquiscience,
democratic or otherwise. There are probably more effective venues
to explore
this as there will always be pro, neutral and anti government
Buddhist.Unless
as policies are discriminatory against Singopore Buddhists, there
is very
little reason for political agendas to be posted here. However, as
long as
people are not poisoned by hate and anger, sometimes a different
constructive
perspective is helpful.
How would you define a Buddhist identity, a tribal label,
devotee, layman practitioner, or a person who have renonced the
worldly ties, to speak the least. Why we be very strict and only
label enlightenen people as Buddhist, or maybe easing abit, non
returners with this label. So which one do you want to play, the
quality of the Buddhist or the numbers’ game. If that’s the case,
we can certainly add all the so called “buddhist” cults. Should we
allowing the labelling of being Buddhist be a politically
adversarial and divisive?
Everytime someone mentions the Dharma Ending Age, I get that
there is a feeling morbidity, a kind of doomsday kind of feeling.
No, the world is not going to end, just that it would be harder and
harder for the future generations to practise true Buddhism. The
real urgency is that the more times you are going to be reborn in
the future, the harder it is for the Buddha seed to germinate and
ripen. But that is in the future, you are here now, practise
now.
The world view of an average Buddhist has changed, owing to
rapid changes, thus relevancy of current religious practice too
changes.
Buddhism primarily, is about renunciation, non clinging above
everything else. That Buddhism is an antidote to the all the
madness, is the teachers to understand the madness, and touching a
chord with the everyday man and woman.