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.
Just to add another perspective on this, not necessarily my own beliefs...
War and conquest have been a catalyst for some of mankinds greatest acheivements - from WW2 came space flight and what some people consider mankinds greatest acheivement - man on the moon. Perhaps war is not inherently evil, but a consequence of our Darwinian competitiveness that drives us on to better the species.
As for the Indians (i too have Anglo-Indian blood - didn't know there was so many of us) they seem to be embracing Western capitalism with some fervor - perhaps it is not the colonial system they had a problem with but the fact they were bottom of that system. You see American rappers with the same attitude, complaining how their people are trapped by capitalist ideology but as soon as they get rich it's houses in Hollywood and limos.
As for Britain we were conquered a few times ourselves, the Romans credited with doing a fair bit of good for us.
Personally i'm not sure about this one, just where do you draw the line - how far back into history do we have to delve to make accurate reperations? Surely if we focus on improving the conditions for the destitute (regarless of how they were made destitute - a lot of it's our fault but not all of it) in the present - redistributing wealth and opportunities as is fair - we can let go of the past.
Personally i'm not sure about this one, just where do you draw the line - how far back into history do we have to delve to make accurate reperations? Surely if we focus on improving the conditions for the destitute (regarless of how they were made destitute - a lot of it's our fault but not all of it) in the present - redistributing wealth and opportunities as is fair - we can let go of the past.
The heart of the problem, I think! The enriched need to help the impoverished.
And how far back? Unfortunately we have to think across at least 2000 years because we set ourselves a dangerous precedent when we recognised the ancient claim to 'Israel' simply on that basis.
What I have said is what the Buddha has taught. So, what the Buddha has taught about personal actions, kamma, and the Path to Awakening somehow gives Buddhists a "detached" reputation? If what I say worries you, then perhaps Buddhism is not the right Path for you. The Buddha often advises one to become dispassionate and disentangled from worldly views and attachments, and to focus on the holy life instead. The holy life is lived for the realization of the Unconditioned, the destruction of all afflictions, the complete end of suffering. That is what I practice, and why I practice.
What the holy life is not lived for, however, is the continuous sorrow and lamentation over past deeds. The Buddha did not teach that. Let me ask a question then: What more can I do? What more can a young, single, white, American, janitor do to change the whole world and make up for my ancestor's, your ancestor's, and all of our ancestor's misdeeds?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Those deeds are done, and nothing I can do will ever change what has already been done. That is why the Buddha stresses mindfulness so much, that we should always be mindful of our actions and their effects. What we do can never be undone. It is better to do nothing than to do something terrible which will harm others and cause regret.
I am as equally kind to everyone I met. I don't say "Hey, I'll only be nice and compassionate towards these people cause they're oppressed, but not these people cause they did some bad things somewhere in the past." If they are German, I treat them the same. If they are Jewish, I treat them the same. If they are white, I treat them the same. If they are black, I treat them the same. If they are Native American, I treat them the same. If they are Thai, I treat them the same. If they are Muslim, I treat them the same. I treat all men and women the same. I show them respect, and I accept them as equal.
If I have compassion for those who were oppressed, tortured, killed, and driven from their lands, then I can certainly have an equal amount of compassion for the people that caused them so much pain. I do not segregate people Simon. They are all human beings to me. Some are definitely more misguided than others, but they are no less deserving of my loving-kindness. My actions are not those of the past, they are the actions of the present. What I do will effect what is to come, and hopefully what is to come is more tolerance, compassion, equality, and love. But, if that isn't good enough for you, all I can say is that I am deeply sorry for giving Buddhists such a bad reputation.
Can we say that there is not just one Buddhist path? Some go up the mountain, and come back to the market. Some travel up and down several times. Others, if it is their time, stay on the mountain.
Yes, we can say that, but we cannot say that Buddhism is something other than what the Buddha has taught. I find it strange that so many come to Buddhism wishing to practice it, and yet when they hear what the Buddha has actually said, they disagree with it because they believe differently. So, I do my best to teach and uphold what the Buddha did teach. I do not do this to cause suffering for other people, but I do it to keep what the Buddha taught unclouded from personal reinterpretations. Especially on online forums, where most of the people who post seem to know very little about the actual teachings spoken by the Blessed One. That is why I take it as my personal duty to help others by posting relevant Suttas and Sutta passages whenever and wherever possible. I merely want to help educate newcomers that are seriously interested in Buddhism by doing this, because many simply have no knowldge of them. I find the Suttas to be a most valuable treasure that is sorely overlooked. Many Buddhists lack any kind of serious study into the various Canons, and rely more on second hand commentary instead. The Dhamma expounded by the Blessed One is actually very specific in it's Goal and methods for acheiveing that Goal. I will listen to everyone's opinions on what they think about that, but in the end I will always refer back to what the Buddha himself has taught. I sincerely apologize if this causes you [or anyone else] any unhappiness.
Can we say that there is not just one Buddhist path? Some go up the mountain, and come back to the market. Some travel up and down several times. Others, if it is their time, stay on the mountain.
Yes, Harlan - I think it is safe to say that there is just not one Buddhist path.
If there were one single Buddhist path - there would be a single Buddhism. There wouldn't be the Theravada or Mahayana or Vajrayana or Tibetan or Zen. There wouldn't be the different interpretations between documents which supposedly teach what Buddha himself said.
There is no single interpretation of the teachings of Buddha no matter how emphatically someone takes it upon themselves to prove it is so. There are generalizations that are agreed upon and then further teachings which are disagreed upon and have been disagreed upon for over a thousand years.
There is the buddha-nature within you that is here and now and that, I believe, will be just as important in your learning and following of the path as reading various Pali scriptures. Possibly more so - because I can't really recall any stories of all the canons that Buddha read to help him gain Enlightenment.
Please do not be offended, as this is coming from a non-sutric (therefore 'uneducated') POV: Buddha's 'words' were meant to be rediscovered by each of us...not regurgitated; Lessons are hidden until certain keys find their locks...and that is a condition of time and experience.
Yes, we can say that, but we cannot say that Buddhism is something other than what the Buddha has taught. I find it strange that so many come to Buddhism wishing to practice it, and yet when they hear what the Buddha has actually said, they disagree with it because they believe differently. So, I do my best to teach and uphold what the Buddha did teach. I do not do this to cause suffering for other people, but I do it to keep what the Buddha taught unclouded from personal reinterpretations. Especially on online forums, where most of the people who post seem to know very little about the actual teachings spoken by the Blessed One. That is why I take it as my personal duty to help others by posting relevant Suttas and Sutta passages whenever and wherever possible. I merely want to help educate newcomers that are seriously interested in Buddhism by doing this, because many simply have no knowldge of them. I find the Suttas to be a most valuable treasure that is sorely overlooked. Many Buddhists lack any kind of serious study into the various Canons, and rely more on second hand commentary instead. The Dhamma expounded by the Blessed One is actually very specific in it's Goal and methods for acheiveing that Goal. I will listen to everyone's opinions on what they think about that, but in the end I will always refer back to what the Buddha himself has taught. I sincerely apologize if this causes you [or anyone else] any unhappiness.
Your friend,
Jason
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited January 2006
It's a bit like the -
"In my father's House there are many Mansions...." bit...
We're all under the same roof... and all these posts make sense.... I think it depends on the individual "seeker" as to which flavour they prefer at the moment... but that doesn't exclude other flavours, or say that they are wrong.... One by one, bit by bit, every one of the ice-cream flavours merits being chosen!
For my part, for example, I love Lama Surya Das... Now he's not to everyone's taste, and he's different, say, to Thich Nhat Hanh.... But they both teach about the Eightfold Path... they both detail what each 'chapter' or 'Spoke' is teaching... And they're both facing the same way....And one will illustrate a point in one way, and the other in another... But ultimately, what they're both saying points to the same Buddha....
That is still no excuse to do whatever you feel like under the guise of Buddhism. The Buddha taught a very specific Goal, and a very specific Path to that Goal. There is not really much left to interpretation. If one were to look at the common Suttas/Sutras from all the Canons before the schisms, they are identical. We have examples of Pali, Sanskrit, and Chinese texts that mirror each other, texts that came from the Buddha and left unchanged between all schools of Buddhism. We can even compare all the Vinayas of all the schools existent today, and see that they too are almost identical.
The only things that people try to interpret now-a-days are questions that the Buddha leaves unanswered. But, those are left alone purposefully, as they do not pertain to the Buddha's Path. It is an epidemic in the U.S. that people take whatever they wish to believe in, and declare that Buddhism. This has nothing to do with Theravada, Mahayana, Zen, etc. I am none of those. I will openly admit than some Suttas in the Pali Canon appear to be, in all likelihood, forgeries. I generally try to refrain from using those. However, the vast, vast majority are not. [For more on this topic, please listen to this talk by Ajahn Sujato.]
I am quite confused by these reactions. Buddhism is not mysterious. Buddhism is not some secret, coded message. The Buddha usually spoke very plainly, and taught his discourses quite thoroughly. I don't understand why people have to try and interpret what he was saying. He was nothing if not straightforward. For example, when the Buddha said we should refrain from killing, he meant that we should refrain from killing. When the Buddha said that every intentional action of body, speech, and mind carries an effect, he meant that every action carries an effect--skillful actions equal skillful effects, unskillful actions equal unskillful effects. It doesn't really get any clearer.
When people overlook that there was a Buddha, that he did teach something very profound and specific, and that to gain its benefits it must be correctly practiced, can you fault me for trying to point all these things out? All I am saying is if they truly wish to practice Buddhism, then they must know what the Buddha actually taught. If they would rather create their own mix of religious beliefs, or practice atheistic humanism, then that is perfectly fine--just don't misrepresent that to others as being Buddhism.
There are certainly limits as to what you can interpret, and teach in the name of the Buddha. "Tastes" aside, there are certain things that the Buddha was just adamantly against, and if someone were to try and say that those particular things were an integral part of the Buddha's Path, they'd be dead wrong. I may run the risk of being perceived as the "intolerant bad guy" for saying so, but it is a risk that is worth taking, if only to correct a wrong view about what the Buddha taught. Those are my personal feelings about it at any rate. I may not always do it in the most skillful of ways, but I just feel that I have to say "Hey, maybe you need to take a closer look here, maybe you're missing something. Who cares what he said, or she said, what did the Buddha himself say?"
That is still no excuse to do whatever you feel like under the guise of Buddhism. The Buddha taught a very specific Goal, and a very specific Path to that Goal. There is not really much left to interpretation. If one were to look at the common Suttas/Sutras from all the Canons before the schisms, they are identical. We have examples of Pali, Sanskrit, and Chinese texts that mirror each other, texts that came from the Buddha and left unchanged between all schools of Buddhism. We can even compare all the Vinayas of all the schools existent today, and see that they too are almost identical.
The only things that people try to interpret now-a-days are questions that the Buddha leaves unanswered. But, those are left alone purposefully, as they do not pertain to the Buddha's Path. It is an epidemic in the U.S. that people take whatever they wish to believe in, and declare that Buddhism. This has nothing to do with Theravada, Mahayana, Zen, etc. I am none of those. I will openly admit than some Suttas in the Pali Canon appear to be, in all likelihood, forgeries. I generally try to refrain from using those. However, the vast, vast majority are not. [For more on this topic, please listen to this talk by Ajahn Sujato.]
I am quite confused by these reactions. Buddhism is not mysterious. Buddhism is not some secret, coded message. The Buddha usually spoke very plainly, and taught his discourses quite thoroughly. I don't understand why people have to try and interpret what he was saying. He was nothing if not straightforward. For example, when the Buddha said we should refrain from killing, he meant that we should refrain from killing. When the Buddha said that every intentional action of body, speech, and mind carries an effect, he meant that every action carries an effect--skillful actions equal skillful effects, unskillful actions equal unskillful effects. It doesn't really get any clearer.
When people overlook that there was a Buddha, that he did teach something very profound and specific, and that to gain its benefits it must be correctly practiced, can you fault me for trying to point all these things out? All I am saying is if they truly wish to practice Buddhism, then they must know what the Buddha actually taught. If they would rather create their own mix of religious beliefs, or practice atheistic humanism, then that is perfectly fine--just don't misrepresent that to others as being Buddhism.
*clinging oh so intently to his soap-box*
:rant:
Jason
Jason, my friend...
I would expound on what my beliefs are, but after your "The Discourse at Kosambi"-chastisement, regarding a discussion between Brigid and myself, I feel it best to refrain than carry out a discussion in public.
That is quite different, you two were getting personal about abusive situations. I am sticking to what the Buddha taught, and what people say to me in reaction to that. There was no intention to chastised you or Brigid, either. There was simply a "Hey, you guys are getting into a very unskillful conversation using speech where emotions will be hurt, and it will have long term consequences. Anyone of you would do the same for me [I'd hope].
I am sorry if my posts, Sutta quotes, and opinions are unwelcomed, or if they appear to be disparaging in any way. My whole purpose here is to help give people the resources that they need in order to explore this way of life which we call "Buddhism". I may not be "right" all of the time, but I do my best to give others the resources needed to discern if I am indeed correct or not. I do not general post my opinion with no background information or references for what I am saying.
Often, my posting of Suttas is seen as being humorous, and an ongoing joke of sorts, but it also has a very serious intent. I wish to share the Buddha's profound knowledge will all true seekers of the Middle Way. I am certainly never one to say "Believe everything I say, or everything that you read", but you have to have some sort of foundation to build your practice upon. Suttas/Sutras are that foundation of practice. If anyone here wishes to actually discuss Buddhism and what the Buddha taught, I will be more than happy to participate. If not, I will simply go elsewhere to discuss Buddhism with people who do.
No one is disparaging your participation. In fact, I believe that - actually I should only speak for myself - I rely on you to provide the Sutta information that you do. You are quite fervent in your sharing of knowledge - which I see as a form of "caring".
Your depth and knowledge - and your persistance at gaining more knowledge - provides a fount of wisdom for me.
But, my friend, we are not perfect beings - myself first and foremost. Whether it is ignorance, attachment, ego or perception that causes us pain and confusion - it is still pain and confusion.
I think that any time people deal with others - we learn more about these people than we have at first contact. I also believe that as things are discussed, regarding the lies and untruths we've lived with our whole lives, and we start to tear away these lies and untruths - it is a painful process.
It's like seeing that the teachings of Buddha do not play kindly with the sense of "self" that our egos have wrought upon us. It's not always going to be a pleasant situation.
If you leave or quit posting your knowledge of Suttas - I will find where you live (just a couple of states south of me) and give you a Right Asskicking.
I understand that nobody has said anything like that, but I often get the feeling like people sometimes react to me that way. I imagine that it might seem like I post a Sutta just to poke at someone, or give them an indirect "You're stupid for saying that!" type of thing, but I do not do that in anyway. If I feel that a Sutta [or passage] applies to certain situation or discussion, I simply post it. It's more so people can just read it and say "Oh, so that's what the Buddha thought, or how he handled it..."
I admit, I often include my own [albeit imperfect] personal opinions, thoughts, and commentaries into my posts as well, but those should be overlooked well before the Suttas themselves. I do not pride myself on what I think I know [mostly because I end up finding out that I'm wrong], but I do pride myself on what I try to learn, and consequently practice. I take this way of life, and my practice, very seriously. It is not a joke to me in any way at all. Not a day goes by that I do not consider whether I should ordain at some point in my life or not. In fact, I am quite positive that I will [whether it is only temporary or permanently].
I spend most of my free time in study, practice, or discussion of what the Buddha taught, and I am coming from that point of view. I have just seen the harm many so-called "Buddhist teachers" have caused through their own irresponsibility. Nobody anyone here is discussing mind you, but just certain "bad apples". However, I also agree with everything that you've said, and I apologize for the many times I've overreacted in the past, am overreacting right now, or will overreact in the future. On a side note: If I happen to ever need a Right Asskicking, I'll definitley want you to be the one to do it. [Just be gentle with me, ok?]
I bet that one of the reasons that you get those feelings from people is because you've given them something to think about - that they really don't WANT to think about.
At times, it can be difficult to have someone tell you you are acting like an ass - when you have been acting like an ass.
I guess it's up to you to decide if you want to continue giving "slaps of reality" when you know people are just going to (initially) be pissed at you for slapping them.
-bf
I'm feeling so old today - I don't think I could get my leg that high. I "might" be able to hand out a couple Ankle-Kickings. You just gotta promise not to kick back.
I understand that nobody has said anything like that, but I often get the feeling like people sometimes react to me that way. I imagine that it might seem like I post a Sutta just to poke at someone, or give them an indirect "You're stupid for saying that!" type of thing, but I do not do that in anyway.
perception is often deception...
You get the feeling... You imagine....
Know this.
I always value your posts.
I'm always telling new members that there are others far more knowledgeable than I, on forum, and it always includes you.
My point - as badly as I have put it - is not that people should be fed false or innaccurate information about what the Buddha taught, nor that it should be diluted or washed down, or even be selective and abridged....but that for many folks (myself anteriorly included) accepting and learning what the Buddha taught in this way is akin to asking a baby to walk before it can crawl.
That you teach what the Buddha taught - we all agree.
That what you teach is accurate, precise and succinct - we all agree;
That you're a valued, articulate and knowledgeable valued member of the forum - we all agree.
All I was trying to communicate - badly, as it turns out - and how we got to this discussion, I can't quite work out - is that the phraseology is sometimes difficult to digest.
Isn't this actually the question of language and terminology, we were discussing in another thread...? Didn't somebody post something about adapting the Sutras to a more modern approach, to make it more widely available, without the risk of altering or "damaging" the original teachings....?
THIS is what I'm talking about.
Maybe I'm talking at cross-purposes with everyone, so I may just take a back seat for a moment....!!
Touching on what Simon and other were talking about earlier in the discussion. Without blaming or wallowing in our past misdeeds, I think Thich Nhat Hanh makes this wonderful assessment in the Preface to an equally wonderful book called Seeds of Peace by Sulak Sivaraksa.
Every time we take the time to smile, we relax our mind and body, and we help ourselves and those around us touch peace. But it is not always easy to smile. There is so much suffering in the world. We human beings start wars, exploit our environment, and steal from one another because we lack understanding. Every act is both a cause and an effect. If we can takethe time to notice the wonders of life that are within us and all around us, we will plant seeds of peace in ourselves and in the world.
We cannot escape the consequences of our actions. We can help each other or we can destroy each other. If we in the First World exploit our sisters and brothers in the Third World, either directly or by exporting our materialist values, it diminishes their lives and our own as well. We need friends, and if we want to have friends, we cannot continue to consume most of the world's resources while 40,000 people, mostly children, die each day from the lack of food.
...
It is important for us to understand what is going on--not just here, but also there. Our brothers and sisters in the Third World are suffering while we in Europe and America have more luxuries than we really need. If we look at the suffering directly, we can truly understand whay is going on, here and there. But we must balance that by looking deeply into the eyes of a child, so that we can smile, be refreshed, and be strong enough to continue. We that kind of effort, we will know what to do and what not to do to create real peace. if we are mindful in each momonet, we will plant seeds of peace in ourselves wherever we go in the world, and these seeds will surely blossom.
I also think Thich Nhat Hanh's message can also apply to the original topic of this thread and the topic it diverged into. By "looking at the suffering directly, we can truly understand what is going on." Inequality between men and women is a cause of suffering in the world. But by looking directly at it, we can understand it, and "we will know what to do and what not to do to create real peace."
O.K. My temper tantrum is over. Fede hit me with that damn stick and pulled me kicking and screaming off the floor and back into the forum. I told her "I WON'T grow up!! I won't, I won't, I WON'T!!! You can't MAKE me!!!" But she's a pretty good "Nasty Girl" teacher. I'm really mad at her. And eternally grateful. Having explored the alternatives to Buddhism I found there weren't any. Dammit. I don't want to do any of this. It's too uncomfortable. It sucks. It's hard. I don't WANT to get over myself. I dislike this part of the process intensely. I dislike this part of myself intensely. That's why I'm back. (sigh)
I've found that the reaction of Buddhist men in "sexism in Buddhism" discussions isn't much different from the reaction of any men in any discussions related to women exploring their experiences and beliefs in the context of patriarchal traditions. At least in the West, I can't speak to how it goes in the East. It's a common complaint from those on the "down side" of any -ism: that those who aren't subject to it don't and can't get it. My take on it is that those on the "up side" can, at best, work hard to open to why they can't understand from the level of personal experience and why that matters. This view stems from having worked for a long time to comprehend my own skin color blindness and tacit acceptance of the privileges that come with having the "right" skin color as a member of the dominant group in a racist society. I'd suggest that the understanding, an opening to it, is the point. It's not about "accepting responsibility for being a bad guy" or "getting better", or "changing attitudes" or "being less of a sexist or a racist or a whatever-ist".
When I talk about the Buddhist nun situation with others and ask with complete sincerely why some nuns had more rules for religious life than some Buddhist monks did, I receive great explanations for it. Responses about cultures, societies, very informative and interesting to read, although the real answer for me is expressed in a sentence: Men dwell in samsara equally with women, but it's still the case that our access and freedom to study and practice has been limited by male Buddhist leaders throughout history because of gender.
I'm not talking about setting rules in order to protect the nuns so that they could be free to practice. We already know that it was the actions of the men around the women that inhibited the women's ability to practice and not the other way around. The Buddha could have been pragmatic, he could have even realized from a place of enlightenment that this was the only way women who existed within a society where they were little more than servants could have enough freedom to practice. But if it's indeed true that he established the rules, then he also chose to accomodate a sexist paradigm rather than looking at the truth of a failure of humankind. I'm not the Buddha, I can't say why he did. But part of me thinks it's not possible that he made such rules and that they were instead established centuries later in order to subordinate the bhikkunis, for political reasons.
If he did, then what was his understanding of women's experience 2500 years ago? If he knew suffering and the end of suffering to be timeless truth, then why did he limit his direction regarding women to the point in time of his incarnation as Gautama? Granted, he taught in a particular society, but one would think he could've come up with something a bit more creative than the stability of the existing society as the rationale for treating the women differently in order to perpetuate Buddhist doctrine. Why would he worry about what would happen 1,000 years down the road, anyway? I've seen it written that he was being pragmatic in this decision, not afraid. But this chapter of the story always resonates with me as the classic monastic fear of the temptress. This never has anything to do with the women themselves, you see. Just a view of us. (Well, and power and control, but that's another thread.) Hence, my questioning of the basis for this choice and his understanding of women's experience.
Because to me, his decision to subordinate nuns to monks says as much about that understanding as his grudging concession to Ananda that we could attain enlightenment, too. For several reasons, I believe he had intent that contradicts what I'd describe as an enlightened view. If that's controversial, so what? I'm a Buddhist, I follow his teachings, he advised me to test them at all points along the way and I've always tried to take that advice. Even if I think his actions sucked, does it make any difference? If it did, then I guess I'd have to remove a human being, even an enlightened one, from his pedestal. That's not a problem, as there's neither human being nor pedestal.
This legacy lives on...and the choices some Buddhist men presume everyone has is simply not the same in a world of inquality. It's possible to view this from the cerebral world of doctrinal interpretations, but a woman (and people of color and the disabled and gay people, etc.) will have life experiences that reflect something else. Through practice, a woman can learn about self view, duality, impermanence, suffering, all of that. This helps her to understand more deeply and to find a broader context for her experience. That understanding has nothing to do with the fact that organized Buddhism has a long history of sexual inequality and still can be sexist as hell. There is the alternative of letting the views of women be, that women believing men are responsible for some sh*t is just what is and that wisdom requires being as open to that as to anything else, that compassion requires a deep look at the true nature of this suffering.
Thich Nhat Hanh had an interesting take on the Buddha's reasoning for more nun's vows. In Old Path White Clouds he has the Buddha rejected prospective nuns and even his own aunt several times before his own monks convince him to let them join. Even before he let nuns join Nhat Hanh's Buddha let an untouchable join the ranks of monks. Nhat Hanh's Buddha is afraid that if he accepts nuns then he will loose the support of the aristocracy and other people high in the caste system who if they were against him could possibly use their armies to physically stop them from practicing, could confiscate their monasteries and force the monks to leave their robes and bowls. He chooses to move forward in his vision of equality slowly and gradually rather than radically. When he did finally let nuns in, following the same reasoning, he would only let them join if the would continue to be subordinate to the men. Nhat Hanh implied, though, that the Buddha intended this to only be a temporary solution until men could start seeing women as equal. But obviously he was short sighted in this regard, because its never happened.
What I have said is what the Buddha has taught. So, what the Buddha has taught about personal actions, kamma, and the Path to Awakening somehow gives Buddhists a "detached" reputation? If what I say worries you, then perhaps Buddhism is not the right Path for you. The Buddha often advises one to become dispassionate and disentangled from worldly views and attachments, and to focus on the holy life instead. The holy life is lived for the realization of the Unconditioned, the destruction of all afflictions, the complete end of suffering. That is what I practice, and why I practice.
What the holy life is not lived for, however, is the continuous sorrow and lamentation over past deeds. The Buddha did not teach that. Let me ask a question then: What more can I do? What more can a young, single, white, American, janitor do to change the whole world and make up for my ancestor's, your ancestor's, and all of our ancestor's misdeeds?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Those deeds are done, and nothing I can do will ever change what has already been done. That is why the Buddha stresses mindfulness so much, that we should always be mindful of our actions and their effects. What we do can never be undone. It is better to do nothing than to do something terrible which will harm others and cause regret.
I am as equally kind to everyone I met. I don't say "Hey, I'll only be nice and compassionate towards these people cause they're oppressed, but not these people cause they did some bad things somewhere in the past." If they are German, I treat them the same. If they are Jewish, I treat them the same. If they are white, I treat them the same. If they are black, I treat them the same. If they are Native American, I treat them the same. If they are Thai, I treat them the same. If they are Muslim, I treat them the same. I treat all men and women the same. I show them respect, and I accept them as equal.
If I have compassion for those who were oppressed, tortured, killed, and driven from their lands, then I can certainly have an equal amount of compassion for the people that caused them so much pain. I do not segregate people Simon. They are all human beings to me. Some are definitely more misguided than others, but they are no less deserving of my loving-kindness. My actions are not those of the past, they are the actions of the present. What I do will effect what is to come, and hopefully what is to come is more tolerance, compassion, equality, and love. But, if that isn't good enough for you, all I can say is that I am deeply sorry for giving Buddhists such a bad reputation.
Sincerely,
Jason
I think, Jason, that one of the differences between us (you and me, I mean) is that, for you, it is the reported words of an historical character, the Shakyamuni Buddha, which are the beginning and end of any discussion. I see a different unfolding across thousands of years rather than just a few decades 2500 years ago. Since the Buddha's passing, the Dharma has been taught in many different ways by some who are considered to be buddhas too: Padmasambhava. Longchenpa. Dogen, and, even, modern teachers like Thich Nhat Hanh.
It is certain that the social conscience is not a central aspect of much of the original turnings of the Wheel, the Dhammapada urges us to generosity:
Verily the misers go not to celestial realms. Fools do not indeed praise liberality; the wise man rejoices in giving and thereby becomes happy thereafter.
(Dhammapada, 177)
As I have said before, the encounter between Buddhism and the West has given rise to the notion of Engaged Buddhism, a term coined by TNH over 40 years ago. In the book being studied here, The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching, he says:
When we invoke the name of Avalokiteshvara, this is the willingness and capacity of being there, listening, responding to suffering and helping beings. When we invoke the name of Samantabhadra, that is the willingness and capacity of acting mindfully and joyfully to serve others. When we inoke the name of Manjushri, that is the willingness and capacity of looking deeply, understanding, and being the eyes of the world. With this kind of will, guided by clear understanding, our consciousness becomes an instrument of engagement in the world.
Thich Nhat Hanh The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching
I am not able to make the distinction that seems so clear to you, although I can understand why it may be important. My own hours of study have led me to the opinion that absolutism, literalism. and right/wrong dualism are obstacles in my own practice. I cannot speak for others. Many fellow pilgrims with whom I have conversation, be they Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Muslim, express similar views to your own: that their reading of their chosen scriptures is authoritative or 'self-evident'. I adopt a more open-ended hermeneutic whilst acknowledging that it is only one among many. We have never yet managed to achieve more than respectful disagreement. Long may it stay so!
BTW: if anyone feels like laughing at Jason's posts, be they links, sutras or personal reflections, I suggest that they go take a cold shower, perform whatever exercises they use to reduce pride and then read again. They will find that there is deep truth, commitment and scholarship. I count it as one of the great blessings or good karma that I am allowed to learn from him.
1. Please know that absolutely no disprespect was/is intended towards you. Perhaps there were/are some misunderstandings on my part about what you are saying, but nothing more.
2. This is a Buddhist site, so I like to keep my references limited to Buddhism whenever possible [unless I'm posting in the Buddhism and the rest of the world forum, the Jesus and Buddha forum, or just being silly, etc.]. That is why I use Suttas from the Pali Canon almost exclusively [that and I'm more familiar with them than any of the others].
3. The Buddha's Goal and Path really has nothing to do with social conscience per se. They certainly had their own problems back in the Buddha's time [I mean come on, it's not like it only sucks now], but what the Buddha taught transcends all this worldly stupidity and ignorance. Basically it all comes down to the Buddha saying that greed, hatred, and delusion are the causes of all or negative actions. Remove those causes, and no more negative actions. Now you are the ultimate in social conscience.
4. While I personally use other sources in my studies [i.e. various other Sutras and teachings ranging from works by Thanissaro Bhikkhu to Nagarjuna], I generally keep my posts limited to the words of the Buddha that I am most familiar with. I simply feel that since he started this, we should listen to him first and foremost.
5. I never said that we shouldn't help people, I said that we shouldn't harbor guilt for someone else's actions. [Dispassion, by the way, does not imply inaction.] With the cultivation of metta (loving-kindness), karuna (compassion), mudita (sympathetic joy) and upekkha (equanimity), along with the teachings of punabhava (rebirth) and kamma (action), we can do nothing but the right thing. We will automatically do whatever we are capable of doing to relieve the suffering of others.
6. Look, when did I ever say that my chosen scriptures were authoritative or 'self-evident'? Practice and study are certainly two completely different things, and I bet that you have an amazing amount of both, but my position is that if people truly want to know the what the Buddha taught [Nibbana], and how to get there [the Noble Eightfold Path], then they better read his words. It's as simple as that. I am a Buddhst practitioner who's posting on a Buddhist website. In my mind, I am doing what is appropriate. That doesn't mean that I believe this is the only Path for people to take, it's just the one that I'm on.
7. Sometimes I don't know what you are saying because you use some really big words, but I pretend to know anyway. [Just thought I'd mention that.]
8. You should know me better, I was not always a "Buddhist". I have just taken it upon myself to say "Ok, I'm going to quit this pick-and-choose baloney and really put everything I have into one practice [unlike my past eclectic all out faithfest]. If I want to see if what the Buddha said was true, I better get my ass walking on his Path--no detours, tourist traps, or bawdy houses this time!"
9. I would completely disagree with your last statememt [as I do not think you will find any of that here], but I thank you very much for it anyway. I, coincidentally, have the very same opinion of you.
Sincerely,
Jason
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Huge index right at the bottom, and quite an interesting site....
If you want it, enjoy - !!
Fede,
Yes, I LOVE her website. She's a source of inspiration and great strength for me. Doesn't she have a wonderful way with words, especially for the ears of westerners? It was her books that I started with and I'd like to meet her one day to thank her and shake her hand. There's so much on her website that I STILL haven't got all the way through it. She's tireless. And such a wonderful teacher! That's the perfect link for this thread, IMHO.
What is important to me is recognizing that perfection is impossible in all likelihood but nevertheless I am wise to seek to be the best I can. While I might not understand or agree with all aspects of Buddhism, it remains to me an inspiration for how to live my life.
Equality is an important issue to me. Having been the target of discrimination, I am humbled and saddened by the experience. When I get down by people's expressions of bigotry, racism or the like, I really need to remind myself that in all faiths there are people who demonstrate the best of their faith. Those are the people whom I want to spend time with and learn from.
Comments
War and conquest have been a catalyst for some of mankinds greatest acheivements - from WW2 came space flight and what some people consider mankinds greatest acheivement - man on the moon. Perhaps war is not inherently evil, but a consequence of our Darwinian competitiveness that drives us on to better the species.
As for the Indians (i too have Anglo-Indian blood - didn't know there was so many of us) they seem to be embracing Western capitalism with some fervor - perhaps it is not the colonial system they had a problem with but the fact they were bottom of that system. You see American rappers with the same attitude, complaining how their people are trapped by capitalist ideology but as soon as they get rich it's houses in Hollywood and limos.
As for Britain we were conquered a few times ourselves, the Romans credited with doing a fair bit of good for us.
Personally i'm not sure about this one, just where do you draw the line - how far back into history do we have to delve to make accurate reperations? Surely if we focus on improving the conditions for the destitute (regarless of how they were made destitute - a lot of it's our fault but not all of it) in the present - redistributing wealth and opportunities as is fair - we can let go of the past.
The heart of the problem, I think! The enriched need to help the impoverished.
And how far back? Unfortunately we have to think across at least 2000 years because we set ourselves a dangerous precedent when we recognised the ancient claim to 'Israel' simply on that basis.
What I have said is what the Buddha has taught. So, what the Buddha has taught about personal actions, kamma, and the Path to Awakening somehow gives Buddhists a "detached" reputation? If what I say worries you, then perhaps Buddhism is not the right Path for you. The Buddha often advises one to become dispassionate and disentangled from worldly views and attachments, and to focus on the holy life instead. The holy life is lived for the realization of the Unconditioned, the destruction of all afflictions, the complete end of suffering. That is what I practice, and why I practice.
What the holy life is not lived for, however, is the continuous sorrow and lamentation over past deeds. The Buddha did not teach that. Let me ask a question then: What more can I do? What more can a young, single, white, American, janitor do to change the whole world and make up for my ancestor's, your ancestor's, and all of our ancestor's misdeeds?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Those deeds are done, and nothing I can do will ever change what has already been done. That is why the Buddha stresses mindfulness so much, that we should always be mindful of our actions and their effects. What we do can never be undone. It is better to do nothing than to do something terrible which will harm others and cause regret.
I am as equally kind to everyone I met. I don't say "Hey, I'll only be nice and compassionate towards these people cause they're oppressed, but not these people cause they did some bad things somewhere in the past." If they are German, I treat them the same. If they are Jewish, I treat them the same. If they are white, I treat them the same. If they are black, I treat them the same. If they are Native American, I treat them the same. If they are Thai, I treat them the same. If they are Muslim, I treat them the same. I treat all men and women the same. I show them respect, and I accept them as equal.
If I have compassion for those who were oppressed, tortured, killed, and driven from their lands, then I can certainly have an equal amount of compassion for the people that caused them so much pain. I do not segregate people Simon. They are all human beings to me. Some are definitely more misguided than others, but they are no less deserving of my loving-kindness. My actions are not those of the past, they are the actions of the present. What I do will effect what is to come, and hopefully what is to come is more tolerance, compassion, equality, and love. But, if that isn't good enough for you, all I can say is that I am deeply sorry for giving Buddhists such a bad reputation.
Sincerely,
Jason
Yes, we can say that, but we cannot say that Buddhism is something other than what the Buddha has taught. I find it strange that so many come to Buddhism wishing to practice it, and yet when they hear what the Buddha has actually said, they disagree with it because they believe differently. So, I do my best to teach and uphold what the Buddha did teach. I do not do this to cause suffering for other people, but I do it to keep what the Buddha taught unclouded from personal reinterpretations. Especially on online forums, where most of the people who post seem to know very little about the actual teachings spoken by the Blessed One. That is why I take it as my personal duty to help others by posting relevant Suttas and Sutta passages whenever and wherever possible. I merely want to help educate newcomers that are seriously interested in Buddhism by doing this, because many simply have no knowldge of them. I find the Suttas to be a most valuable treasure that is sorely overlooked. Many Buddhists lack any kind of serious study into the various Canons, and rely more on second hand commentary instead. The Dhamma expounded by the Blessed One is actually very specific in it's Goal and methods for acheiveing that Goal. I will listen to everyone's opinions on what they think about that, but in the end I will always refer back to what the Buddha himself has taught. I sincerely apologize if this causes you [or anyone else] any unhappiness.
Your friend,
Jason
Yes, Harlan - I think it is safe to say that there is just not one Buddhist path.
If there were one single Buddhist path - there would be a single Buddhism. There wouldn't be the Theravada or Mahayana or Vajrayana or Tibetan or Zen. There wouldn't be the different interpretations between documents which supposedly teach what Buddha himself said.
There is no single interpretation of the teachings of Buddha no matter how emphatically someone takes it upon themselves to prove it is so. There are generalizations that are agreed upon and then further teachings which are disagreed upon and have been disagreed upon for over a thousand years.
There is the buddha-nature within you that is here and now and that, I believe, will be just as important in your learning and following of the path as reading various Pali scriptures. Possibly more so - because I can't really recall any stories of all the canons that Buddha read to help him gain Enlightenment.
-bf
"In my father's House there are many Mansions...." bit...
We're all under the same roof... and all these posts make sense.... I think it depends on the individual "seeker" as to which flavour they prefer at the moment... but that doesn't exclude other flavours, or say that they are wrong.... One by one, bit by bit, every one of the ice-cream flavours merits being chosen!
For my part, for example, I love Lama Surya Das... Now he's not to everyone's taste, and he's different, say, to Thich Nhat Hanh.... But they both teach about the Eightfold Path... they both detail what each 'chapter' or 'Spoke' is teaching... And they're both facing the same way....And one will illustrate a point in one way, and the other in another... But ultimately, what they're both saying points to the same Buddha....
Just me speaking....
Or squeaking.....
Like a wheel that needs oiling....
Warning: Soap-box moment in progress!
That is still no excuse to do whatever you feel like under the guise of Buddhism. The Buddha taught a very specific Goal, and a very specific Path to that Goal. There is not really much left to interpretation. If one were to look at the common Suttas/Sutras from all the Canons before the schisms, they are identical. We have examples of Pali, Sanskrit, and Chinese texts that mirror each other, texts that came from the Buddha and left unchanged between all schools of Buddhism. We can even compare all the Vinayas of all the schools existent today, and see that they too are almost identical.
The only things that people try to interpret now-a-days are questions that the Buddha leaves unanswered. But, those are left alone purposefully, as they do not pertain to the Buddha's Path. It is an epidemic in the U.S. that people take whatever they wish to believe in, and declare that Buddhism. This has nothing to do with Theravada, Mahayana, Zen, etc. I am none of those. I will openly admit than some Suttas in the Pali Canon appear to be, in all likelihood, forgeries. I generally try to refrain from using those. However, the vast, vast majority are not. [For more on this topic, please listen to this talk by Ajahn Sujato.]
I am quite confused by these reactions. Buddhism is not mysterious. Buddhism is not some secret, coded message. The Buddha usually spoke very plainly, and taught his discourses quite thoroughly. I don't understand why people have to try and interpret what he was saying. He was nothing if not straightforward. For example, when the Buddha said we should refrain from killing, he meant that we should refrain from killing. When the Buddha said that every intentional action of body, speech, and mind carries an effect, he meant that every action carries an effect--skillful actions equal skillful effects, unskillful actions equal unskillful effects. It doesn't really get any clearer.
When people overlook that there was a Buddha, that he did teach something very profound and specific, and that to gain its benefits it must be correctly practiced, can you fault me for trying to point all these things out? All I am saying is if they truly wish to practice Buddhism, then they must know what the Buddha actually taught. If they would rather create their own mix of religious beliefs, or practice atheistic humanism, then that is perfectly fine--just don't misrepresent that to others as being Buddhism.
*clinging oh so intently to his soap-box*
:rant:
Jason
No offense taken. I'm just over-reacting, that's all.
Jason
I agree, but only up to a point.
There are certainly limits as to what you can interpret, and teach in the name of the Buddha. "Tastes" aside, there are certain things that the Buddha was just adamantly against, and if someone were to try and say that those particular things were an integral part of the Buddha's Path, they'd be dead wrong. I may run the risk of being perceived as the "intolerant bad guy" for saying so, but it is a risk that is worth taking, if only to correct a wrong view about what the Buddha taught. Those are my personal feelings about it at any rate. I may not always do it in the most skillful of ways, but I just feel that I have to say "Hey, maybe you need to take a closer look here, maybe you're missing something. Who cares what he said, or she said, what did the Buddha himself say?"
It's only out of good intetnions.
Honest.
Jason
Jason, my friend...
I would expound on what my beliefs are, but after your "The Discourse at Kosambi"-chastisement, regarding a discussion between Brigid and myself, I feel it best to refrain than carry out a discussion in public.
I truly wish you peace with your journey.
-bf
That is quite different, you two were getting personal about abusive situations. I am sticking to what the Buddha taught, and what people say to me in reaction to that. There was no intention to chastised you or Brigid, either. There was simply a "Hey, you guys are getting into a very unskillful conversation using speech where emotions will be hurt, and it will have long term consequences. Anyone of you would do the same for me [I'd hope].
Sincerely,
Jason
I am sorry if my posts, Sutta quotes, and opinions are unwelcomed, or if they appear to be disparaging in any way. My whole purpose here is to help give people the resources that they need in order to explore this way of life which we call "Buddhism". I may not be "right" all of the time, but I do my best to give others the resources needed to discern if I am indeed correct or not. I do not general post my opinion with no background information or references for what I am saying.
Often, my posting of Suttas is seen as being humorous, and an ongoing joke of sorts, but it also has a very serious intent. I wish to share the Buddha's profound knowledge will all true seekers of the Middle Way. I am certainly never one to say "Believe everything I say, or everything that you read", but you have to have some sort of foundation to build your practice upon. Suttas/Sutras are that foundation of practice. If anyone here wishes to actually discuss Buddhism and what the Buddha taught, I will be more than happy to participate. If not, I will simply go elsewhere to discuss Buddhism with people who do.
...
Jason
No one is disparaging your participation. In fact, I believe that - actually I should only speak for myself - I rely on you to provide the Sutta information that you do. You are quite fervent in your sharing of knowledge - which I see as a form of "caring".
Your depth and knowledge - and your persistance at gaining more knowledge - provides a fount of wisdom for me.
But, my friend, we are not perfect beings - myself first and foremost. Whether it is ignorance, attachment, ego or perception that causes us pain and confusion - it is still pain and confusion.
I think that any time people deal with others - we learn more about these people than we have at first contact. I also believe that as things are discussed, regarding the lies and untruths we've lived with our whole lives, and we start to tear away these lies and untruths - it is a painful process.
It's like seeing that the teachings of Buddha do not play kindly with the sense of "self" that our egos have wrought upon us. It's not always going to be a pleasant situation.
If you leave or quit posting your knowledge of Suttas - I will find where you live (just a couple of states south of me) and give you a Right Asskicking.
Your friend,
-bf
I understand that nobody has said anything like that, but I often get the feeling like people sometimes react to me that way. I imagine that it might seem like I post a Sutta just to poke at someone, or give them an indirect "You're stupid for saying that!" type of thing, but I do not do that in anyway. If I feel that a Sutta [or passage] applies to certain situation or discussion, I simply post it. It's more so people can just read it and say "Oh, so that's what the Buddha thought, or how he handled it..."
I admit, I often include my own [albeit imperfect] personal opinions, thoughts, and commentaries into my posts as well, but those should be overlooked well before the Suttas themselves. I do not pride myself on what I think I know [mostly because I end up finding out that I'm wrong], but I do pride myself on what I try to learn, and consequently practice. I take this way of life, and my practice, very seriously. It is not a joke to me in any way at all. Not a day goes by that I do not consider whether I should ordain at some point in my life or not. In fact, I am quite positive that I will [whether it is only temporary or permanently].
I spend most of my free time in study, practice, or discussion of what the Buddha taught, and I am coming from that point of view. I have just seen the harm many so-called "Buddhist teachers" have caused through their own irresponsibility. Nobody anyone here is discussing mind you, but just certain "bad apples". However, I also agree with everything that you've said, and I apologize for the many times I've overreacted in the past, am overreacting right now, or will overreact in the future. On a side note: If I happen to ever need a Right Asskicking, I'll definitley want you to be the one to do it. [Just be gentle with me, ok?]
Jason
At times, it can be difficult to have someone tell you you are acting like an ass - when you have been acting like an ass.
I guess it's up to you to decide if you want to continue giving "slaps of reality" when you know people are just going to (initially) be pissed at you for slapping them.
-bf
I'm feeling so old today - I don't think I could get my leg that high. I "might" be able to hand out a couple Ankle-Kickings. You just gotta promise not to kick back.
I know I certainly hate it when I've realized I've been an ass... hey, wait a minute!
:grr:
Jason
perception is often deception...
You get the feeling... You imagine....
Know this.
I always value your posts.
I'm always telling new members that there are others far more knowledgeable than I, on forum, and it always includes you.
My point - as badly as I have put it - is not that people should be fed false or innaccurate information about what the Buddha taught, nor that it should be diluted or washed down, or even be selective and abridged....but that for many folks (myself anteriorly included) accepting and learning what the Buddha taught in this way is akin to asking a baby to walk before it can crawl.
That you teach what the Buddha taught - we all agree.
That what you teach is accurate, precise and succinct - we all agree;
That you're a valued, articulate and knowledgeable valued member of the forum - we all agree.
All I was trying to communicate - badly, as it turns out - and how we got to this discussion, I can't quite work out - is that the phraseology is sometimes difficult to digest.
Isn't this actually the question of language and terminology, we were discussing in another thread...? Didn't somebody post something about adapting the Sutras to a more modern approach, to make it more widely available, without the risk of altering or "damaging" the original teachings....?
THIS is what I'm talking about.
Maybe I'm talking at cross-purposes with everyone, so I may just take a back seat for a moment....!!
Keith
Keith
(edit: sorry I misquoted him the first time)
-bf
keith
I hope you all assumed I meant "It would not be the same without you!"
Enough of one-liners, back to the topic... :type:
I've found that the reaction of Buddhist men in "sexism in Buddhism" discussions isn't much different from the reaction of any men in any discussions related to women exploring their experiences and beliefs in the context of patriarchal traditions. At least in the West, I can't speak to how it goes in the East. It's a common complaint from those on the "down side" of any -ism: that those who aren't subject to it don't and can't get it. My take on it is that those on the "up side" can, at best, work hard to open to why they can't understand from the level of personal experience and why that matters. This view stems from having worked for a long time to comprehend my own skin color blindness and tacit acceptance of the privileges that come with having the "right" skin color as a member of the dominant group in a racist society. I'd suggest that the understanding, an opening to it, is the point. It's not about "accepting responsibility for being a bad guy" or "getting better", or "changing attitudes" or "being less of a sexist or a racist or a whatever-ist".
When I talk about the Buddhist nun situation with others and ask with complete sincerely why some nuns had more rules for religious life than some Buddhist monks did, I receive great explanations for it. Responses about cultures, societies, very informative and interesting to read, although the real answer for me is expressed in a sentence: Men dwell in samsara equally with women, but it's still the case that our access and freedom to study and practice has been limited by male Buddhist leaders throughout history because of gender.
I'm not talking about setting rules in order to protect the nuns so that they could be free to practice. We already know that it was the actions of the men around the women that inhibited the women's ability to practice and not the other way around. The Buddha could have been pragmatic, he could have even realized from a place of enlightenment that this was the only way women who existed within a society where they were little more than servants could have enough freedom to practice. But if it's indeed true that he established the rules, then he also chose to accomodate a sexist paradigm rather than looking at the truth of a failure of humankind. I'm not the Buddha, I can't say why he did. But part of me thinks it's not possible that he made such rules and that they were instead established centuries later in order to subordinate the bhikkunis, for political reasons.
If he did, then what was his understanding of women's experience 2500 years ago? If he knew suffering and the end of suffering to be timeless truth, then why did he limit his direction regarding women to the point in time of his incarnation as Gautama? Granted, he taught in a particular society, but one would think he could've come up with something a bit more creative than the stability of the existing society as the rationale for treating the women differently in order to perpetuate Buddhist doctrine. Why would he worry about what would happen 1,000 years down the road, anyway? I've seen it written that he was being pragmatic in this decision, not afraid. But this chapter of the story always resonates with me as the classic monastic fear of the temptress. This never has anything to do with the women themselves, you see. Just a view of us. (Well, and power and control, but that's another thread.) Hence, my questioning of the basis for this choice and his understanding of women's experience.
Because to me, his decision to subordinate nuns to monks says as much about that understanding as his grudging concession to Ananda that we could attain enlightenment, too. For several reasons, I believe he had intent that contradicts what I'd describe as an enlightened view. If that's controversial, so what? I'm a Buddhist, I follow his teachings, he advised me to test them at all points along the way and I've always tried to take that advice. Even if I think his actions sucked, does it make any difference? If it did, then I guess I'd have to remove a human being, even an enlightened one, from his pedestal. That's not a problem, as there's neither human being nor pedestal.
This legacy lives on...and the choices some Buddhist men presume everyone has is simply not the same in a world of inquality. It's possible to view this from the cerebral world of doctrinal interpretations, but a woman (and people of color and the disabled and gay people, etc.) will have life experiences that reflect something else. Through practice, a woman can learn about self view, duality, impermanence, suffering, all of that. This helps her to understand more deeply and to find a broader context for her experience. That understanding has nothing to do with the fact that organized Buddhism has a long history of sexual inequality and still can be sexist as hell. There is the alternative of letting the views of women be, that women believing men are responsible for some sh*t is just what is and that wisdom requires being as open to that as to anything else, that compassion requires a deep look at the true nature of this suffering.
Keith
I think, Jason, that one of the differences between us (you and me, I mean) is that, for you, it is the reported words of an historical character, the Shakyamuni Buddha, which are the beginning and end of any discussion. I see a different unfolding across thousands of years rather than just a few decades 2500 years ago. Since the Buddha's passing, the Dharma has been taught in many different ways by some who are considered to be buddhas too: Padmasambhava. Longchenpa. Dogen, and, even, modern teachers like Thich Nhat Hanh.
It is certain that the social conscience is not a central aspect of much of the original turnings of the Wheel, the Dhammapada urges us to generosity:
As I have said before, the encounter between Buddhism and the West has given rise to the notion of Engaged Buddhism, a term coined by TNH over 40 years ago. In the book being studied here, The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching, he says:
I am not able to make the distinction that seems so clear to you, although I can understand why it may be important. My own hours of study have led me to the opinion that absolutism, literalism. and right/wrong dualism are obstacles in my own practice. I cannot speak for others. Many fellow pilgrims with whom I have conversation, be they Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Muslim, express similar views to your own: that their reading of their chosen scriptures is authoritative or 'self-evident'. I adopt a more open-ended hermeneutic whilst acknowledging that it is only one among many. We have never yet managed to achieve more than respectful disagreement. Long may it stay so!
BTW: if anyone feels like laughing at Jason's posts, be they links, sutras or personal reflections, I suggest that they go take a cold shower, perform whatever exercises they use to reduce pride and then read again. They will find that there is deep truth, commitment and scholarship. I count it as one of the great blessings or good karma that I am allowed to learn from him.
All I can say is:
1. Please know that absolutely no disprespect was/is intended towards you. Perhaps there were/are some misunderstandings on my part about what you are saying, but nothing more.
2. This is a Buddhist site, so I like to keep my references limited to Buddhism whenever possible [unless I'm posting in the Buddhism and the rest of the world forum, the Jesus and Buddha forum, or just being silly, etc.]. That is why I use Suttas from the Pali Canon almost exclusively [that and I'm more familiar with them than any of the others].
3. The Buddha's Goal and Path really has nothing to do with social conscience per se. They certainly had their own problems back in the Buddha's time [I mean come on, it's not like it only sucks now], but what the Buddha taught transcends all this worldly stupidity and ignorance. Basically it all comes down to the Buddha saying that greed, hatred, and delusion are the causes of all or negative actions. Remove those causes, and no more negative actions. Now you are the ultimate in social conscience.
4. While I personally use other sources in my studies [i.e. various other Sutras and teachings ranging from works by Thanissaro Bhikkhu to Nagarjuna], I generally keep my posts limited to the words of the Buddha that I am most familiar with. I simply feel that since he started this, we should listen to him first and foremost.
5. I never said that we shouldn't help people, I said that we shouldn't harbor guilt for someone else's actions. [Dispassion, by the way, does not imply inaction.] With the cultivation of metta (loving-kindness), karuna (compassion), mudita (sympathetic joy) and upekkha (equanimity), along with the teachings of punabhava (rebirth) and kamma (action), we can do nothing but the right thing. We will automatically do whatever we are capable of doing to relieve the suffering of others.
6. Look, when did I ever say that my chosen scriptures were authoritative or 'self-evident'? Practice and study are certainly two completely different things, and I bet that you have an amazing amount of both, but my position is that if people truly want to know the what the Buddha taught [Nibbana], and how to get there [the Noble Eightfold Path], then they better read his words. It's as simple as that. I am a Buddhst practitioner who's posting on a Buddhist website. In my mind, I am doing what is appropriate. That doesn't mean that I believe this is the only Path for people to take, it's just the one that I'm on.
7. Sometimes I don't know what you are saying because you use some really big words, but I pretend to know anyway. [Just thought I'd mention that.]
8. You should know me better, I was not always a "Buddhist". I have just taken it upon myself to say "Ok, I'm going to quit this pick-and-choose baloney and really put everything I have into one practice [unlike my past eclectic all out faithfest]. If I want to see if what the Buddha said was true, I better get my ass walking on his Path--no detours, tourist traps, or bawdy houses this time!"
9. I would completely disagree with your last statememt [as I do not think you will find any of that here], but I thank you very much for it anyway. I, coincidentally, have the very same opinion of you.
Sincerely,
Jason
Huge index right at the bottom, and quite an interesting site....
If you want it, enjoy - !!
Nevertheless, to find salvation, one does not have to become a nun. Salvation is within each and every one of us
Fede,
Yes, I LOVE her website. She's a source of inspiration and great strength for me. Doesn't she have a wonderful way with words, especially for the ears of westerners? It was her books that I started with and I'd like to meet her one day to thank her and shake her hand. There's so much on her website that I STILL haven't got all the way through it. She's tireless. And such a wonderful teacher! That's the perfect link for this thread, IMHO.
Love,
Brigid
-bf
(Ageing bike mamma stomps off in a sulk)
Equality is an important issue to me. Having been the target of discrimination, I am humbled and saddened by the experience. When I get down by people's expressions of bigotry, racism or the like, I really need to remind myself that in all faiths there are people who demonstrate the best of their faith. Those are the people whom I want to spend time with and learn from.