Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

"Fake" Buddhists?

24

Comments

  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    lol!

    I liked that for some reason, thanks @PedantricPorpoise
  • SileSile Veteran
    edited August 2012
    I find the spectrum very much in the students though, too - the same center inspires some students to be very teacher-focused whereas some students are very teaching-focused. Pretty much the same as any martial arts (or other group) teaching environment. This same spectrum again can be seen in the relationship to the Buddha(s); some really rely on these enlightened beings in a personal way, whereas others are more interested in the message.

    The spectrum is visible within a student, too (or at least it is in me). When everything's going fine I can be very practice-oriented but when in great fear or worry something opens up in my heart and mind and I feel a strong need to ask for help from enlightened beings, or to recite a simple mantra to calm myself down rather than do a more intellectual reading or practice.

    I think the spectrum is powerful and addresses the spectrum of needs and the reality of ever-shifting mental states.

    If there is a school which stresses one and only one teacher, though, that is usually (always, in my personal experience) a danger sign. The best practices are illuminated and enhanced by studying views from other teachers and other schools, even if the views differ in spots--it provides perspective.

    Another thing to think about is that--and I'll use a Tibetan example since that's the only one I have experience with--as far as I know, all Tibetan schools have been shaped and illuminated by great masters from other Tibetan schools. These masters, from multiple schools, are spoken of often, in reverential and respectful tones, in my experience. It makes no sense that ones school, then, would only today suddenly be limited to one teacher's view.

  • SileSile Veteran
    I should add that I don't believe any school that does this to be inherently "bad," just that I would put that teacher's advice--the advice to ignore other schools and teachers--in the same category as any other advice from that teacher which instantly violated my own beliefs, and upon inspection, appears to violate even the schools' own historical practices.

    It doesn't mean there's nothing to be learned from that teacher. But this is why it's so important to observe the teacher for years before taking him/her as your root teacher--you want to be sure their beliefs don't require you to violate yours, and that his/her logic doesn't fly in the face of the school's historical logic, and of Buddhist logic in general. It doesn't mean a teacher whose beliefs differ from your own is a bad teacher or a bad person. It just means it may not be a good match.
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    I find the spectrum very much in the students though, too - the same center inspires some students to be very teacher-focused whereas some students are very teaching-focused.
    I'm not sure this applies at the ends of the spectrum though. To me Nichiren Buddhism
    ( faith ) and secular Buddhism ( reason ) are like chalk and cheese.
  • When I read the first post my first question was 'who is judging?'
    I now see it is almost everyone posting here!
  • BunksBunks Australia Veteran
    I have a bit to do with the NKT here in Melbourne - however, like one of the earlier posters, I find the fact they only sell books etc. written by their leader / guru as off putting. Happy to contribute my $10 to the weekly meditation class though - the teacher is great!!

    I went to a retreat at their temple and they had a "puja" on the Saturday night. They had a photo of their guru on a chair at the front of the temple and they all bowed down to it and chanted some song about him.

    I don't bow down to anybody! (maybe that's my ego getting in the way).

    I am going to another retreat up there in a few weeks. I'll be sitting in the cafe reading a book on the Saturday night though...no puja for me!!

    Nice people though...
    The reason why they only sell books by the author is to avoid confusion of views, practitioners are free to read whatever books they wish. The NKT is Mahayana/Vajrayana tradition it is not uncommon to find other centers placing an image of their guru on a throne as a matter of respect and singing long life prayers for them, The bowing is also another method of respect, practitioners throughout Buddhism bow before the 3 jewels and it is common in Vajrayana to pay the same respect to the Guru who is regarded as the same as Buddha. Hope that clears up a few things for you.

    Enjoy your meditation class. :)
    Thanks for that!! I am off to help set up for the lunch time meditation class as soon as I finish this post actually.

  • I think fake buddhists are those supreme hedonists, almost luciferians that like to call themselves buddhists.
    The scenario is quite familar to me, a person that just likes to party, to drink a lot, and dedicates his life to shallowness like to call himself a buddhist.

    Think for example of the infamous "Buddha Bar"

    They believe Buddhism is some kind of anarchism where you satisfy all your desires.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    @Catontheroof, That's awfully strange, since Buddhism is quite the opposite, about dispassion rather than desire fulfillment.
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    They believe Buddhism is some kind of anarchism where you satisfy all your desires.
    I haven't come across any of those yet - is it another new contempary school? ;)
  • @Cloud, I know its strange but there's many people like this. Sure, desire is the cause for suffering but they see it in a different way. Haven't you entered ever to a bar or restaurant where there's a Buddha statue? I find funny the thought of Buddha drinking some shots :D
    IndigoBlueSky9Che
  • http://www.buddhabarnyc.com

    The ultimate dinning experience!
  • @Rujin, yeah this is exactly what I'm talking about! Why are they naming restaurants and bars as Buddha something? Are they comparing the sensation to get free of samsara with the one of having some nice oysters, dancing to Guetta's music while drinking some vodka? Its quite dumb and disrespectful in my opinion.
  • SileSile Veteran
    edited August 2012

    I think fake buddhists are those supreme hedonists, almost luciferians that like to call themselves buddhists.
    The scenario is quite familar to me, a person that just likes to party, to drink a lot, and dedicates his life to shallowness like to call himself a buddhist.

    Think for example of the infamous "Buddha Bar"

    They believe Buddhism is some kind of anarchism where you satisfy all your desires.

    To be honest, this doesn't sound very familiar. Most people I know who seem to me to be obsessed with shallowness don't really care to think of themselves as belonging to a particular religion.

    I think "fake Buddhist" is just as hard, or perhaps harder, to define than "Buddhist." Certainly, having a Buddhist statue doesn't make one a Buddhist any more than having a Lenin statue makes one a Communist.

    But some people who drink or go to parties or seem to be dedicated to shallowness are in fact Buddhists--it doesn't mean they're fake, it may just mean they are only so far in their practice.

    Is a medical student on his/her first day of school a medical student? Technically, yes, but on day one they may be indistinguishable from an engineering student. It depends on where you are on your path.

    If I were inclined to use the term "fake Buddhist" at all, I would probably reserve it for people who feel strongly they are not Buddhist, but are posing as Buddhists for some surreptitious reason.
  • @Catontheroof, That's awfully strange, since Buddhism is quite the opposite, about dispassion rather than desire fulfillment.
    Uh... that's why he's saying they are "fake."
  • @Rujin, yeah this is exactly what I'm talking about! Why are they naming restaurants and bars as Buddha something? Are they comparing the sensation to get free of samsara with the one of having some nice oysters, dancing to Guetta's music while drinking some vodka? Its quite dumb and disrespectful in my opinion.
    There seems to be some perception of hedonism as mentioned earlier.
  • SileSile Veteran

    @Rujin, yeah this is exactly what I'm talking about! Why are they naming restaurants and bars as Buddha something? Are they comparing the sensation to get free of samsara with the one of having some nice oysters, dancing to Guetta's music while drinking some vodka? Its quite dumb and disrespectful in my opinion.

    I think they just have the general impression that the Buddha is friendly, likable, and positive. I could be wrong, but I doubt anyone establishing a "Buddha bar" is aware of the word "samsara," so I don't think it's purposefully distasteful; but perhaps ignorantly distasteful.

    If one imagines how far a business could get under the name Jesus Bar, Rabbi Bar, or Mohammed Bar, it does show that all is not equal on this playing field; at the same time, it could indicate that Buddhists are a little less rigid and not so easily offended.

    IndigoBlueSky9
  • PrairieGhostPrairieGhost Veteran
    edited August 2012
    All sincerely practicing Buddhists are utter frauds. Now if I could just find that self who was pretending to be a sincerely practicing Buddhist, I'd... except he's not there. Or at least I couldn't find him, and I've looked everywhere. Sincerely.
    CloudlobsterFlorian
  • fake Buddhism is the whole of my practice. Quick to judge. Quick to be defiled. I will never be anything but an improper Buddhist.
    If I had any humility, I would change but then I would be an improper changeling of some other realm . . . ;)
    Citta
  • I
    how said:

    I tend to notice that most Buddhist schools as well as practitioners fall into either the meditative or devotional camp.
    While all claim to be both, all seem to have one or the other as the foundation of their practise. Those who place the primary focus on the devotional usually also apply this practise towards their teacher, which is understandable.
    The devotionally oriented schools nearly always elevate their teacher & his/her understanding above others while the meditative tend to just do it for themselves.
    I doubt that the attachments of one is much worse than the other, just the optics.

    This relates to the five indiryas which are factors balanced by the eightfold path.

    The balance of faith-sradda/insight-prajna...

    Individuals as well as organizations are included in the balancing act.
  • howhow Veteran Veteran
    edited October 2012
    AAhhh, and here I thought balance was the dropping of both. Just what is carrying either or both?
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited October 2012
    Nothing is carrying them.. They are qualities of the mind reading these lines. That mind is clear, luminous, and unimpeded. Clarity (energy + concentration), Openness, and sensitivity (sradda-faith or embodying + prajna-information/intelligence)

    where + means balance..

    The balance is obtained by opening, which you could say as perfect equanimity..

    Avidya (ignorance) is closing down to experience.
  • Mindfulness
  • howhow Veteran Veteran
    Hey Jeff

    A couple of thoughts to ponder...I am not sure they are true, but they have served me well so far.

    I think it is important to understand the difference between the ideal and the actual.

    Folks who I've thought were truely awake, loung supine in the actual.

    The ideal however, often arises as a long term couch for those dreamers
    who'd rather be somewhere other than where they really are.

    Many mistake balance for spiritual conformity (the mimicking of the spiritual experience.) but if it doesn't manifest as fluidity, it's just another mental construct to let go of.

    lobster
  • How very well said how.
    I have heard empty (not in a good sense) platitudes from 'advanced' practitioners and great wisdom from dharma children.
    We have to look to the results.
    From what I know and experience, devoted practice in a life affirming way, transforms us and no doubt, the 'transformation is empty' pseuds.
    I know that put in a difficult situation, my old karma reasserts.

    Be kind, offer what you have, do what you can is probably the best I can do . . . and probably not as decidedly as my heroes and teachers, my yidams and fantasy Buddhas . . . :rarr:
  • i think this is quite common in most religions people who say they are so and so but only follow it half heartedly. But saying this surely if they are happy in themselves, doing what that are doing and most importantly do not harm anyone in the process then i have no probs.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited October 2012
    My forum name is Citta Sparticus. I am a fake.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited October 2012

    If you can see the pic..


    these people are not Buddhist imo. They are from the NKT.. protesting the Dalai Lama because he doesn't condone the propitiation of a spirit that has been found to be nothing but controversial ever since it made its first appearance during the Fifth Dalai Lamas life.. it arose in opposition of him.

    Anybody who protests another Buddhist is ridiculous.

    It is controversial, which is why it is known as the Dorje Shugden Controversy.

    His Holiness is likely never going to change his stance on that topic.. he is not going into their homes and preventing them from practicing it. All he has done is said that he recommends one to not do such practices.

    If these people are convinced that they are 100% right then they should have compassion for His Holiness instead of petty picketing protests.

    I have never had a connection with the NK's
    However I have seen film footage of members of the NK being attacked verbally and physically by a screaming mob of supporters of the DL.
    It is a matter of record that NK sanghas of monks and nuns have been driven by force from their monasteries and nunneries.
    There have been murders on both sides of the schism.
    Lets not assume anything.
    Tibetan politics can rumble along as nastily now as it has for hundreds of years. It does not need our gasolene.
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    Citta said:

    Tibetan politics can rumble along as nastily now as it has for hundreds of years. It does not need our gasolene.

    I agree. And it's a sad state of affairs.
  • Always was Pedantic Porpoise...none of this is new. Whether its a previous DL " forbidding " a previous Sharmapa to take human birth ( ! ), or the present " two Karmapa " scandal.
    Or with less publicity the DL choosing " tulkus" against the deliberations of the heads of other schools in order to retain control over monasteries that prior to the Chinese Invasion had nothing to do with the DL.
    Tibetan politics have nothing to learn from Machiavelli.
  • There is no "real" or "fake" because those are just labels. However there is meaning and there is less meaning in one's actions. Giving from the heart is different than giving for a title of a "true" Buddhist for example.
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    driedleaf said:

    Giving from the heart is different than giving for a title of a "true" Buddhist for example.

    I think it's about behaviour. A fake Buddhist to me is somebody who claims to be a Buddhist but never meditates, constantly breaks the precepts and acts unmindfully.
  • In the Nikayas and Mahayana canon, the fake Buddhists are the prithagjana (P. puthujjana). They have not entered the current (sotapatti) or in Mahayana, they do not have authentic bodhicittotpada (manifesting the mind that is bodhi).
  • I am a putthujjana.
    PrairieGhost
  • SileSile Veteran
    edited October 2012

    I think it's about behaviour. A fake Buddhist to me is somebody who claims to be a Buddhist but never meditates, constantly breaks the precepts and acts unmindfully.

    But that could also describe an ailing Buddhist :)

    I think "fake" can only really apply to people who pose as Buddhists for some other purpose, having no intention-not even the slightest, not even culturally or superficially--of being Buddhist.

    I think you could say that someone who feels they are Buddhist but only mildly or superficially is a "superficial" Buddhist or something, but "fake" to me implies deliberate deception.

    It would be like paintings--a fake Rembrandt could be excellent, could appear to be a Rembrandt in every way, whereas a terrible artist trying honestly to emulate Rembrandt's style could turn out something shoddy, but original, honest and and genuinely-intentioned.

    Looks can be deceiving...a person practicing what looks like perfect Buddhism on the surface, seeking only to deceive, is more fake to me than an ailing Buddhist.

    We can still discuss which is living more by the Buddha's advice, but "fake" to me would be the deceiver, and maybe "imperfect" (myself definitely included) for the others.

    And it's probably better yet to label the actions rather than the person--practicing Buddhism deceptively, versus practicing Buddhism imperfectly, maybe?

    Just my personal labels, tho!

  • RebeccaSRebeccaS Veteran
    edited October 2012
    I don't think it's really for us to decide who's fake and who isn't. If someone calls themself a Buddhist but doesn't do any Buddhist stuff... So what? I just don't think it matters in a general sense. I think it only matters if they're directly affecting your life, like a teacher or something, so you know who to avoid.
    MaryAnne
  • Citta:
    Personally I am suspicious of any who throws terms around indicating that they are a cut above the common herd...I think the term "fake " is not skillful in this discussion, but after quite a long time involved in Dharma I realise that I have no ability or right to judge where others are.
    You probably hate the Buddha then. There were only two categories of beings according to the Buddha: puthujjanas and ariyan. The latter are the only ones who make it out of samsara—the rest doom themselves by their ignorance.
  • Songhill said:

    Citta:

    Personally I am suspicious of any who throws terms around indicating that they are a cut above the common herd...I think the term "fake " is not skillful in this discussion, but after quite a long time involved in Dharma I realise that I have no ability or right to judge where others are.
    You probably hate the Buddha then. There were only two categories of beings according to the Buddha: puthujjanas and ariyan. The latter are the only ones who make it out of samsara—the rest doom themselves by their ignorance.

    But that isn't really any of your business. What do their choices have to do with you? How does that affect you?
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited October 2012
    Songhill said:

    Citta:

    Personally I am suspicious of any who throws terms around indicating that they are a cut above the common herd...I think the term "fake " is not skillful in this discussion, but after quite a long time involved in Dharma I realise that I have no ability or right to judge where others are.
    You probably hate the Buddha then. There were only two categories of beings according to the Buddha: puthujjanas and ariyan. The latter are the only ones who make it out of samsara—the rest doom themselves by their ignorance.

    Yes alas...thats me doomed then. Tut tut.
  • SileSile Veteran
    edited October 2012
    It seems to me in re-reading the OP, that the question was more about ignorance than deception. Neo-religions which feel they are "x" religion, but haven't perhaps compared their neo-version to the original closely enough to have noticed that the neo-religion fails (or is on a path away from) the original's self-definition.

    It's all self-definition, then, but one could at least see if the original religion had a clearly-stated definition of itself, and see if the neo-religion meets that definition.

    It seems to me that Buddhism does have a largely-accepted self-definition, one which has allowed most Buddhist schools and sects today to consider each other Buddhist, while disagreeing on some aspects.

    To me, none of the above strike me as fake, though; just divergent. A "fake" wants to be seen as genuine while secretly knowing it's not genuine, whereas a "not-fake" fully believes it is genuine.

    "Fake" may be a problematic and judgemental word in many ways, but I think it still retains some practical, non-judgmental use as a term. Since we can't know what's in someone else's mind, though, the only way to try and determine whether they're being deceptive is to judge their actions and hazard a guess.

    Most of the time it may not be our business, but now and then there's a question of being personally harmed by someone who is deceptive, and then I think that discussion is valid and necessary, though no less sticky, and it still requires just as much compassion as the discussion on ignorance.

  • Sile said:



    "Fake" may be a problematic and judgemental word in many ways, but I think it still retains some practical, non-judgmental use as a term. Since we can't know what's in someone else's mind, though, the only way to try and determine whether they're being deceptive is to judge their actions and hazard a guess.

    I totally agree. I also think that sometimes you just know. You can feel it in your gut. There's no real evidence of it but something inside you is just completely sure that the person you're dealing with is a liar. My gut is wrong sometimes, but I tend to trust it.
  • Some people don't even know they're "fake". I always think of people with narcissistic personality disorders... Often, they have no idea that they're sick, or the degree of their sickness. They just have no comprehension of it. And I think we're all a bit like that to a degree, not really aware of ourselves.
    Silelobster
  • howhow Veteran Veteran
    Fake and sick are just colors of grey we all wear to varying degrees. Practise shows us how similar we all are, how to accept it and where best to place our next foot on the path.
    Citta
  • how said:

    Hey Jeff

    A couple of thoughts to ponder...I am not sure they are true, but they have served me well so far.

    I think it is important to understand the difference between the ideal and the actual.

    Folks who I've thought were truely awake, loung supine in the actual.

    The ideal however, often arises as a long term couch for those dreamers
    who'd rather be somewhere other than where they really are.

    Many mistake balance for spiritual conformity (the mimicking of the spiritual experience.) but if it doesn't manifest as fluidity, it's just another mental construct to let go of.

    I don't understand what you are saying. It seems like a non-sequitar. If you are interested in what I was saying it is in Rigdzin Shikpo's book: Clarity, Openness, and Sensitivity.


  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    DaftChris said:

    In addition to this site, I'm also a member of a Hindu forum. The majority people on that forum are friendly, informative and open. However, there are quite a few who are vocal about their disdain for "neo-Hindus"; those who mold Brahman to fit their own philosophical leanings, those who don't literally believe in the incarnations, etc.

    This bugs me, because A.) If I were a Hindu, I would be (in some members definition) a "neo-Hindu"; as I have a different idea of what "god" would be and I don't think Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesha, etc. actually exist and B.) It got me thinking: If that was what some people would consider a fake Hindu, what would be the characteristics of a fake Buddhist?

    In your opinion, how do you know when someone is not sincere with their Buddhism?

    There are spectrums to everything, even practicing Buddhism. In my opinion, just because someone does something differently or doesn't live up to the expectations of others doesn't mean they're fake. To me, a fake Buddhist is someone who pretends to be Buddhist for ulterior motives, not just someone who's lazy, uncommitted, or cherry-picks what they chose to believe.
    SileDaftChrisMaryAnne
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    Jason said:

    To me, a fake Buddhist is someone who..... cherry-picks what they chose to believe.

    Are you including Secular Buddhists? ;)
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    Sile said:

    I think you could say that someone who feels they are Buddhist but only mildly or superficially is a "superficial" Buddhist or something, but "fake" to me implies deliberate deception.

    Yes, "fake" does seem to imply deception: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fake.
    Though as has been observed there is also self-deception, which arguably we all suffer from in varying degrees. ;)
  • As no one can agree what a real Buddhist is, I am inevitably a fake.
    Here is a list of my sham activities:
    No respect for the wishes of parents. Abandonment of my duties. Teaching dharma before personal enlightenment . . . wait a minute that is the Buddha.

    Ah well there may be hope even for the worst of us fakes . . . :clap:
  • PrairieGhostPrairieGhost Veteran
    edited October 2012
    Hi lobster:
    No respect for the wishes of parents. Abandonment of my duties. Teaching dharma before personal enlightenment
    As the Japanese say: soso, soso - aaaeeeeeeeei!?

    Did the Buddha teach before he was enlightenened?



  • As the Japanese say: soso, soso - aaaeeeeeeeei!?

    Does this mean, I have a toothache, so back the f**k off?
This discussion has been closed.