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.
Fanatical Buddhism?
I read through all the threads here, even if I don't comment on them. I like the educational experience it provides me. I'm new to Buddhism and enjoying learning. If something is brought up in a discussion I'm not familure with I'll look it up.
But as is the case with anything, when you are looking for one question you often receive numerous answers. Which one is right? Are they all correct? Are they all wrong? Perhaps there is a certain degree of truth to each, but not in it's entirety a truth?
That made me think of the so called "Fanatics" of religion. On one side you have a group who say "That's not what the Bible/Quran etc. says! The Bible/Quran etc. says this!" When you look closer and really study it you realise BOTH sides have perhaps a valid argument, or you may realize you don't agree with either side as you find the Bible/Quran etc to say something entirely different.
I guess what I'm gettin at is this, do you think it's possiable to over educate ourselves in Buddhism to the point that one becomes "Fanatical"? And, could this over education actually PRECLUED one from obtaining enlightenment? (Ignorance is Bliss? See the world through the eyes of a child? The key to happiness is simplicity?) After all, the Budda himself never had any 'training' in The Path. He essentially went in 'ignorant' and through 'self teaching' and 'self disipline' achieved enlightenment. Even after Enlightenment the Budda seemed (from what I gather) illusive about his answers. He never said "No! This is how you do it!" He seemed to give basic guide lines and a smile.
So, is it better to have a 'basic knowledge' and find our way on The Path on our own? Or is it "Knowledge is Power".
Which then makes me ask, isn't Power a form of attachment?
Your thoughts:
But as is the case with anything, when you are looking for one question you often receive numerous answers. Which one is right? Are they all correct? Are they all wrong? Perhaps there is a certain degree of truth to each, but not in it's entirety a truth?
That made me think of the so called "Fanatics" of religion. On one side you have a group who say "That's not what the Bible/Quran etc. says! The Bible/Quran etc. says this!" When you look closer and really study it you realise BOTH sides have perhaps a valid argument, or you may realize you don't agree with either side as you find the Bible/Quran etc to say something entirely different.
I guess what I'm gettin at is this, do you think it's possiable to over educate ourselves in Buddhism to the point that one becomes "Fanatical"? And, could this over education actually PRECLUED one from obtaining enlightenment? (Ignorance is Bliss? See the world through the eyes of a child? The key to happiness is simplicity?) After all, the Budda himself never had any 'training' in The Path. He essentially went in 'ignorant' and through 'self teaching' and 'self disipline' achieved enlightenment. Even after Enlightenment the Budda seemed (from what I gather) illusive about his answers. He never said "No! This is how you do it!" He seemed to give basic guide lines and a smile.
So, is it better to have a 'basic knowledge' and find our way on The Path on our own? Or is it "Knowledge is Power".
Which then makes me ask, isn't Power a form of attachment?
Your thoughts:
0
Comments
For example if I read a book about co-dependent relationships that is not going to be the same thing as experiencing it and seeing for yourself what works to combat or deal with such a relationship.
I think it is 'Knowledge is Power'.. but true knowing comes from experience.
Here's some more knowledge
meditating on impermanence to overcome attachment to life
meditating on suffeirng to overcome attachment to pleasure
meditating on love to overcome attachment to peace
refuge and study and/or guru to overcome ignorance regarding how to do 1-3
A few excerpts:
"If your mind is empty, it is always ready for anything; it is open to everything. In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities; in the expert's mind there are few."
"In the beginner's mind there is no thought, 'I have attained something.' All self-centered thoughts limit our vast mind. When we have no thought of achievement, no thought of self, we are true beginners. Then we can really learn something."
Ironically, I wouldn't really classify this book as a "beginner's book" haha. I made that mistake when I bought it and a bit of it was over my head at the time.
Often when enough knowledge is gained we begin to understand just how much we don't know.
Monks and teachers spend most of their lives studying, they don't seem to have a problem with fanatacism.
I think meditation or direct experience is more important in this case than intellectual knowledge.
To get a geshe degree, which is like multiple PhD's, a monk studies for 15 - 20 years.
However I think that's a generalization.. Individuals may practice all three.. Indeed it's a traditional teaching that hearing, contemplation (or philosphy), and meditation are the three methods of study.
IMO yes. It will become that anyway. Even if you accumulate a vast knowledge of Buddhism and buddhist practice it's still gonna be your practice. Your Buddhism can never be someone else's.
It's not really religious when I put it like that!
we are Buddhists because we follow the Buddha.
Some attachments are to be commended. however, the secret is to let go when appropriate.
Hanging on to an attachment inappropriately, is what does the damage.
hence the 'raft' allegory.
Fundamentalism:
1. Christianity (esp among certain Protestant sects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true
2. Islam a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law
3. strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs
devout:
1. deeply religious; reverent
2. sincere; earnest; heartfelt
Was Mother Theresa devout or fundamentalist? Is the Dalai Lama devout or a fundamentalist? What about Jerry Falwell?
It seems to me that fundamentalists are also generally pretty devout people. But does that make devout people fundamentalist?
I think its helpful to try to seperate fundamentalism from Christianity. The third definition is a strict adherence to any set of beliefs. So can we imagine a fundamentalsit athiest? A fundamentalist capitalist? Any other type of fundamentalist? I think if we can view fundamentalism in a concrete way apart from its most familiar presentations (aka Christianity, Islam) it can help see what it actually is.
Also, I wonder how right view plays in this context. Does seeking right view automatically mean one becomes a fundamentalist? Really, thats not a rhetorical question, I wonder what people think.
I agree it is all relative.
Therefore my definition of a fundamentalist is someone who – when he looks around – sees no fundamentalists in his line of faith. All he sees is true believers (including himself) and renegades.
Anyone who looks around and sees fundamentalists (in his line of faith), well they’re not it.
Fanatical:
motivated or characterized by an extreme, uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.
So I guess a monastic life could be considered extreme. I don't think its uncritical though.
An extreme buddhist lifestyle should be only be brought about through critical analysis. So I guess if one adopts a renunciate life through strict, uncritical adherence to the teachings instead of a careful analysis that could be considered fanaticism.
Historically speaking, this is incorrect. Gautama visited and studied with a number of teachers before he came to his own conclusions.
And this format is the same for all of us. Each of us leaves whatever palace is currently inhabited -- the one that seems to nourish doubt and uncertainty -- and sets off in search of ... whatever we choose to call it ... perhaps peace of mind or enlightenment or ... pick your poison.
But the palace of the past -- the one that inspired so-called suffering -- is itself our most excellent teacher and teaching. When asked about his many 'failures,' Thomas Edison said approximately. "I did not fail 2,000 times to create a light bulb. I discovered 2,000 ways that didn't work."
So ... reading ourselves into a blue funk is possible. But when that doesn't work to produce peace of mind or whatever, well, we have actually discovered something that doesn't work. It's a very good teacher and teaching. If it doesn't work, what does? If fanaticism doesn't work and sitting around like a couch potato doesn't work, what does? It is with these questions in mind that the quick-witted and savvy will speak up for the "middle way." But that raises more questions than it answers: What the hell is the middle way? Intellectually, it's easy to define. As a practical matter, each needs to discover it for himself. And that discovery and actualization owes a great debt to the
fanaticism and laziness of the past.
In Buddhist practice, nothing is ever wasted ... even the most grotesque mistakes. Everything is teaching us all the time. The only question is whether we are willing to open our eyes, take a look and assume the responsibility.
Just a little noodling.
If you do not have such realizations then one must actively cling to the triple jewels and various practices (8 fold path) so that one can create the conditions for such realizations.
If you're going to attach to something then attach to nirvana. Attach to the desire for liberation. If the desire is sincere then the fulfillment of such desire will self destruct upon attaining liberation.
We must all use the dharma until the dharma is obvious in our reality. Until then, cling hard to the dharma.
The Buddha was a special breed. We unlike the buddha hear the dharma, yet we are still stuck in our ignorant ways.
I think one really has to be fanatical and insane to follow the Buddhist path. But ironically it is the path that leads to total sanity and acceptance.
If one isn't going to dive completely, then throw away buddhism and religion. You better not start because it will change you. And if it doesn't then you're just making this into another hobby.
Buddhism is a sword that cuts all ignorance away, not a play toy. Be fanatic or don't bother.