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.
A la carte spirituality and Buddhism?
person
Don't believe everything you thinkThe liminal space Veteran
I was listening to an interview with a Catholic author and he was talking about the issue of a la carte spirituality. His main problem with it was that people can just pick up the things they like and ignore the challenging aspects of religion and in effect end up with a spiritual practice that is essentially just a justification for what they were going to do anyway. He did also say that he wasn't totally opposed to the idea but found that many of the people who don't follow some of the higher ideals of a religion, instead of saying that they aren't able to or don't want to try to live up to them that the ideals are in fact wrong. I kind of liked that last point, for example the recent thread about entertainment, the ideal in Buddhism is that engaging in frivolous entertainment (as a part of gossip) is one of the 10 negative actions. I, myself watch TV and movies, play video games and such, my view isn't that the classification of these actions as leading to suffering is wrong, but that they provide some temporary enjoyment and satisfaction for my craving of entertainment.
In Buddhism though we frequently hear that we should only accept what agrees with our reason and understanding, so an a la carte approach seems somewhat encouraged. So does this criticism of a la carte spirituality by a Catholic apply to Buddhism? What about the notion of viewing the things we don't agree with or understand as wrong?
In Buddhism though we frequently hear that we should only accept what agrees with our reason and understanding, so an a la carte approach seems somewhat encouraged. So does this criticism of a la carte spirituality by a Catholic apply to Buddhism? What about the notion of viewing the things we don't agree with or understand as wrong?
0
Comments
But eventually you have to pick one school and commit serious time and dedication.
Spiritual materialism is large.
But I'm not sure why someone would want to torture themselves through such a difficult yet profound path of Buddhism.
To each his/her own I suppose.
A couple of years back I read two biographies about Franklin Roosevelt. In both, the facts seemed to be presented very well, but a couple of times I questioned some of the interpretations of the facts. Does that mean the book(s) was (were) worthless? No.
When I read what Thailand Tom writes about Thailand, I don't agree with everything he says, but most of the time I think he is pretty much on target.
So why, if I read the wisdom of Buddha or the wisdom of Christ, must I necessarily accept every word, every point of view, or every interpretation?
You mentioned the Catholic author -- apparently he doesn't realize that Catholicism has evolved over the centuries. Does that mean all Catholic teaching was wrong at one time? I don't think he would say that if he was really thinking about it thoroughly.
If he says that when a person disagrees with some particular "article of faith" that a person should examine why he disagrees with it, then I agree. Because a person may disagree with that article of faith simply because "they aren't able to or don't want to try to live up to them". Or, a person may disagree with that article of faith because he truly believe the position to be wrong. To me, there's a tremendous difference.
What is this "all of nothing at all" approach to religion? FUNDAMENTALISM. Whether it's Buddhism or Christianity or Islam...it's still fundamentalism. And I feel very negative for those, even on this forum, who have rejected all of Christianity, because someday when something arises in Buddhism they do not quite agree they are just as likely to reject all of Buddhism. There is wisdom in many places in this world.
Maybe a middle way between.
Blessings
So in these cases, people use Buddhism like tool to temporarily lessen their suffering instead of removing it. It's like when your house is on fire and you walk to a room that is not burning thinking you are ok now, instead of putting the fire out.
I think it is ok for people to do such things -I must admit I also do this at times-, but when we do we should realize we will never get Buddhism fully. The same probably applies to other religions, but with the big distinction that Buddhism isn't a belief system.
I’d say that the goal of Buddhism is spiritual liberation; but I can’t catch that liberation in a definition.
In that approach, spirituality a la carte is fine. It is after all our path, our spirituality and our liberation. It’s all up to us.
But when spirituality is defined in another way it all looks very differently. When Buddhism for instance is defined as the pursuit of extinguishment, of escaping the beginnigless cycle of rebirth in samsara, obviously there are some critical points in the teaching which must be accepted (and the fact of rebirth is number one).
These are just different definitions of the spiritual endeavor and it’s chronically difficult to maintain mutual respect.
I do it at times. I’m not always very respectful towards “fundamentalism”.
Just like talk about “a la carte spirituality” doesn’t sound very respectful.
Why is it so difficult to accept such differences? Why did people get burned alive over religious differences of opinion?
It’s intolerable – I suppose – to acknowledge that the way I understand reality is just one way of understanding it. It’s intolerable to not know.
Just talking too much again.
I agree with @taiyaki ... in the beginning, everyone sniffs the wind. I too went through an ecumenical phase I look back on with understanding, but some embarrassment. It is in the Vedas, I believe, that the line appears, "Truth is one, wise men call it by many names." This is a very consoling line. It allows for sniffing the wind and not feeling that it's a waste of time. It also mitigates the rightful skepticism about a narrow-minded, rock-solid, and sometimes pig-headed approach to things.
"Truth is one, wise men call it by many names." Yes, it's quite consoling. But for anyone who is serious about their hopes and longings in spiritual endeavor, there's another shoe to drop. "Truth is one, wise men call it by many names" may be a true observation, but the other shoe is this: "Now prove it!" Intellectual and emotional appreciations of "truth is one, wise men call it by many names" or "smorgasbord spirituality" only reaches so far. Truth be told, it simply cannot bring peace to the heart. To the lips, perhaps, but not the heart. Somehow each individuals have to address that other shoe: Prove it!
And it is at this juncture that some students make a personal choice -- whatever the choice -- and start digging one deep hole. That choice will be pockmarked with failure and success ... but the student keeps digging ... and digging ... and digging. Fall down seven times, get up eight, as the Japanese say. Make a mistake, correct it. Make another mistake, correct it too ... over and over again.
This effort is not "better" or "worse" than some other chosen path. It runs numerous risks. But its advantage lies in the fact that there is honest water to be found and is worth finding. The object is not to prove something to someone else. The object is for the student -- for possibly the first time in his or her life -- to prove something to him- or herself. For once, there is a chance to issue a no-bones-about-it laugh.
So I disagree that an "a la carte" approach is encouraged. I think that "a la carte" spirituality definitely applies to modern Buddhism, esp in the West (at least, in my experience). You have people like Stephen Batchelor who are "Buddhists without beliefs," choosing the parts of the Dharma that they agree with and discarding the parts that they don't.
I think, like @zenff rightly said, there are many parts of the Dharma that have a prerequisite of accepting another part of the Dharma. You can't just pick and choose what to believe in, or it technically doesn't make sense.
I know quite a few people who do vipassana or zazen, but won't commit to other aspects of Buddhism - they're turned off by being "part of an organized religion" or something. They just want the physiological/psychological benefits of meditation without the "baggage" of the Dharma. I suppose one could argue that one doesn't need to be labelled as a "Buddhist" to be on the path, but I think at least one's mind has to be there. If one is meditating purely for one's own "feel good" benefits, then I think that's not really being on the path that vipassana and zazen pre-supposes one is on.
Not related to Buddhism, but I find the popularity of yoga as exercise and a "feel good" practice is also evidence of the spread of "a la carte" spirituality. It's totally divorcing it from its Hindu roots and turning it into some sort of New Age self-empowerment thing.
Everything around the world is becoming more and more ego-driven and ego-centred to the point where spirituality is just a "take what works for [i]you[/i]" type of thing. Of course, if someone interested in Buddhism goes to a Gelug temple and doesn't like it, they shouldn't stay just because they already went in; they should find a sangha that suits their practice. However, I think that picking and choosing beliefs won't lead to a really whole, integrated spiritual life/practice. I think that's just ego.
Buddhism is ego.
That's why we practice ... not to become 'Buddhists' but to realize/actualize 'Buddha.' My teacher used to say, "without ego, nothing gets done." Even at the most superficial level, this is true. If we don't get off the dime and practice, all we end up with is a gaggle of Buddhists harmonizing or creating dissonances about something they call Buddhism.
~dogen
I think sometimes we see the need to change the tools we dig with - and starting with a post hole digger when we need to dig a deep hole for foundations seems wise.
Getting the basics right is important and with so much on offer it can be difficult to discern the basics ... kinda like this a la carte joke ...
And you could argue that the various Buddhist traditions are so diverse because historically they have "cherry-picked" various aspects of Buddhist teachings and practice, or at least emphasized certain aspects.
Not liking a teaching might be a very good reason to understand it better.
Things added, and changed as new perspectives fit in the puzzle.
This is why despite the call for a traditional devotion of one kind over another, I will likely always remain non-sectarian. I get my suttas/discourses from Theravadan sources but enjoy the others too. Often times I'm seen as too Zen for many and in many Zen circles, I'm not Zen enough, lol.
I'm not too concerned with this though and commit myself to being a work in progress.
Also, my beef w/ cherry picking mostly extends to "spiritual" people, not self-proclaimed Buddhists in particular.