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 Dharma for the masses
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
If you want to teach the principle of compassion, why not just teach compassion. There is no need to hook it to a religion, unless what you're really trying to do is say that your religion is better than someone else's religion.
:thumbsup:
The fundamental transmission of Evangelism is ego. If you can manage a way of being evangelical without being an ego salesman, do tell.
Then I went up country (Chaing Mai) for about a week to meet and visit my roommate's family. They took me sightseeing, including one particular Buddhist temple up on the mountain. There was nothing pushy at all about their attitude. They simply said that they thought I would enjoy "seeing" what Thai Buddhists do at a Buddhist temple. There was no pushing of viewpoints at all. They simply explained the various actions.
And that's all it took for me to be hooked...at least enough to begin reading and searching a bit more.
But every time any member of any religion has preached to me...automatic turnoff.
That’s some spicy metta you have there! I love your passion and conviction, and for calling it as you see it, and calling me out on my mistakes. So, thank you. I’d love to hear more from you, because you will keep me on my toes and keep me focused. To your points…
I love Jesus, I have no problem with him at all, I think he was the perfect Buddhist. I certainly don’t see any human being as lower than anyone else - but that wasn’t clear from my language, so apologies. When I referred to ‘levels’ I was referring to levels of consciousness… and I wasn’t actually talking about the difference in these levels between various religions, but between Buddhism and regular Joes, whoever and whatever they may be, but generally materialistic types. If these levels didn’t exist then we wouldn’t be aspiring to Buddhism, so evidently there are ‘levels’.
These levels don’t make anyone better than anyone else, but it would be fair to say that the ‘level’ of the Dalai Lama is more desirable individually and collectively than, say, George W. Bush. But, your religion or practice does not determine your consciousness… your consciousness determines your consciousness. You can be a Buddhist and still be a dickhead (as I suspect some of you may be considering me to be!), and you can be an atheist and be wonderfully compassionate and caring.
I don’t think I’ve said anywhere that Buddhism is right… in fact, haven’t I spent most of this thread giving examples of all the things I see wrong in Buddhism? I might be wrong, and please quote me if I am, but I don’t recall saying anywhere that there is anything wrong with being Christian. It makes no difference to me what religion you are, I’m only concerned about what is in your heart - are you a caring, compassionate individual, or not? And I think that has been clearly expressed throughout this thread… but if not then I apologise. I don’t think that adapting your message to meet an audience means that that audience is dumb, not at all. It just means you recognise that humans are individuals, that they have different learning styles, different cultural norms and attitudes, and that how you express an idea to one person might not be appropriate for another. That doesn’t mean that anyone is dumb. From the Buddha himself onwards there is a long tradition of skilfully articulating / presenting your ideas, and that is all I am suggesting, but your words above seem to negate that path as valid. Do you feel that Buddhism should hold a static and, maybe, consistent form rather than seeking to be fluid and adaptive to its circumstances? I’ll give you an example that will hopefully illustrate what I’m trying to share… My best friend is a devote Christian, and obviously there are times when she has troubles, and as her best friend I want to help her out. Now, what I’ve learnt is that if I respond to her problem with ‘the Buddha states X,Y&Z’ then she has no interest at all, because for her there becomes a conflict between religions. But if instead I just say ‘X,Y&Z’ then she’ll appreciate the wisdom and the ideas very much! And so, you see, sometimes it is wise to forget the source and just get to the wisdom… I mean, if it helps then does it really matter that the source is overlooked? I disagree, but I appreciate your points of view and engaging with you will certainly help me to clarify some ideas I have. Please keep contributing. J Simple... set an example. There is nothing else a loving individual need do. People will come to you and ask if they see something in your actions worth understanding. if you need to go to people and beat them over the head to get them to listen then you probably aren't worth listening to. I do my best to set an example and to walk the talk that i'd like to articulate. And there is no room for ego in there!
You asked for an alternate point of view and there you have it. I've pointed out what I see as errors in the hope that they may be of some use to you.
If you're not very careful with this kind of endeavor you could potentially lead many people astray, whether you mean to or not, so just be cautious.
Best wishes and kindest regards.
You said "religion or meaning" is a need, and to that I say you're only maybe half right. The religion part is not the need, if there is indeed a need. A need for speed. Err nevermind that's from a movie...
You follow?
You simply can not possibly know what is best for her or what she would benefit from. You don't know her karma. What may look like disaster to you may be a moment of intense spiritual growth for her. You simply don't know. As a Christian following the teachings of Christ, she is guided.
Me saying that my friend would benefit greatly from Buddhism is not the same as me saying that I know what is best for her. I don’t know what is best for her, and I can’t know what is best for her, but as my best friend I can have a good idea of what will benefit her, and vice-versa, for she has shared a lot of Christ’s teachings that have benefited me greatly. Again, I don’t see the contention in what I’m saying. The only contention arises when you state that I’ve said something that I haven’t.
The Bible shows you how to love unconditionally. People don't need Buddhism for that. This is what I was saying about you talking about Christians as if Buddhist were somehow better.
But this is just your interpretation, because no-where do I say that Buddhism is better than Christianity. Me saying that Christians could benefit from Buddhism does not mean that I think Buddhists are better, and I also believe that Buddhists can benefit a lot from Christ’s teachings. I can’t even see how I am insinuating that Buddhism is better than Christianity. It’s a huge, huge leap from X can benefit Y to X is better than Y.
So, basically water them down further and further and reduce them to the understanding of a particular person's submission? And when people who aren't particularly evolved start submitting things, they will be given equal credence and value? I guess you could call it socialist Buddhism or something
No! How does ‘adapting’ translate as ‘watering down’? As for contributions… credence and value are entirely subjective. We may get the village idiot write something her that 99% of us laugh at, but then one person may derive massive value from… take what works, disregard the rest. Good ideas will stand the test of time, the not-so-good will disappear.
The reason they bring peace is that they have been left in tact and haven't been diluted.
Who has said anything about diluting any teachings? And don’t the numerous branches of Buddhism suggest that there are different approaches to the same set of teachings, that there is no one set of teachings ‘left in tact’?
I doubt the Buddha set so many rules just so that 2500 years later you could break them all. Why would he have even bothered with 80,000 teachings if it were so simple?
The Buddha was teaching a path to enlightenment, and all I’m suggesting is that we aim - for now - for simply more love and compassion. From that raised base maybe then people will seek enlightenment, and then the Buddha’s teachings will come into full force. I’m just saying that for the vast populance of this planet it would be more than enough to simply get them acting with more kindness and care.
Again, the "my religion is better than your religion" attitude.
No! I said that Buddhism has the solution to suffering, because it does, but that is not the same as me saying that it is better than anyone else. Bananas have the solution to hunger… is that the same as me saying that bananas are better than any other food for solving hunger?
Essentially, because people are stupid and afraid. Not because they've made seasoned, rational decisions.
Again, I don’t understand the leap you are making. I simply said that I think there are obstacles to people practicing Buddhism, but you interpret that as me saying that people are stupid and afraid…? So, are there no obstacles to people practicing Buddhism?
No they wouldn't. And again, the "Buddhism is the best" attitude.
No, just simple logic. If Buddhism ends suffering and everyone wants to end suffering, then everyone should practice Buddhism. You might argue that Buddhism doesn’t end suffering, or that there are better systems to end suffering, or even that people don’t want to end suffering, but what I’ve outlined above is logical, there is no way around the argument, but you can challenge the premises, by all means.
Yes there is and no I'm not. I said I'm a hamburger 1000 times, nothing changed.
Okay, what I was meaning was that we are what we believe we are.
Psychopaths, to give one example of people who don't value kindness. Pedophiles. Rapists. The list goes on...
Might not the root cause of the above behaviours be a lack of kindness and love? And anyway, why would having sex with a child or forcing sex upon someone else mean that you don’t value or desire kindness or love?
You may see someone as suffering, that doesn't mean they are suffering. One man's meat is another man's poison. Aside from that, there is the point I made earlier about you not knowing their karma or what they need in this lifetime for their own spiritual evolution.
I understand this, but I work with recovering addicts, and they come to our organisation because they are suffering and want our help, and so we give it. Whether I see them as suffering or not is irrelevant, because they state that they are suffering and ask for our help.
You asked for an alternate point of view and there you have it. I've pointed out what I see as errors in the hope that they may be of some use to you.
Best wishes and kindest regards.
I appreciate it, but I don’t understand what you have written, because, basically, you are arguing against things that I haven’t actually said, but that you have interpreted or deduced, and on most occasions those interpretations are huge leaps that I can’t see any grounds for making. I say ‘adapt’ and you say ‘water down’, I say ‘benefit’ and you say ‘better than’. I don’t see the connections and so I’m confused. It almost seems like you are responding less to what I say and more to what you suspect my motives to be… which is your call, but since you can’t know my motives, I think it would be healthier to just address my words than try to relate them to what you think my intentions may be.
It seemed to me RebeccaS wasn't drawing any long lines from your previous postings.
Whether or not it was your intention, your arguments have also come across to me as somewhat arrogant. Using phrases like [reach the/teach the] "masses", simple logic as "if Buddhism ends suffering and everyone wants to end suffering, then everyone should practice Buddhism" comes across as a holier-than-thou attitude. Even "Dharma for the masses"! Again, perhaps this is not consciously your intention; but it certainly does not come across like that.
You also mentioned "Who has said anything about diluting any teachings?" I thought this was your whole point, that some dilution was necessary to teach Buddhism to the ignorant masses, and removing the shrouds of mysticism and religion that you currently believe is encircling the teaching and providing a barrier to those unfortunate souls.
"no-where do I say that Buddhism is better than Christianity." - My apologies if I've found that you have implied this message pervading throughout all your previous postings.
MK
You work with addicts? Then you know basically how this works, and we have common ground here because as well as being an addict I also worked with them.
They're all basically the same, right? Sure, they have different stories, different backgrounds etc., but that's just the content. The context, which is the nature of the addiction, is the same with all of them and so even without knowing their individual story you still have a pretty good idea of where they're coming from.
There are certain "tells", certain things that they do, things that they say, the ways they say it, and even though the content differs from person to person, the pattern (context) is always the same and it becomes pretty easy to see just how far gone they are in their addiction with very little content, if any at all.
These tells become especially easy to pick up on when you've been there yourself.
So, rather than making huge leaps, I'm actually just picking up on your "tells" which I've learned to recognize through personal experience. Your words simply confirmed them.
May blessings of love be upon you,
May its peace abide with you,
May its essence illuminate your heart,
Now and forever more ..
have a good day
You may want to redefine your definition of "civilization" because it is much, much, much older than you think, but that's not why I highlighted this part of ^your^ quote. Yes, it's true that a lot of mideval and renaissance art reflects christian dogma, but where does this Christian dogma come from? Cathedrals are said to be an artistic interpretation of the human form as a microcosm of the entire universe, which is the kind of thought that seems to superceed Christian dogma. It's Vetruvian dogma really. Vetruvius was the right hand man (architectual philosopher type guy) of Marcus Aurileus, the empire builder of Rome. The Vetruvian writings predate Christ and worked their way into a lot of philosophy that merely shouldered up to Christianity. A great book on this topic is called Da Vinci's Ghost: Genius, Obsession, and How Leonardo Created the World in His Own Image by Toby Lester. The whole book is essentially about the DaVinci drawing called the Vetruvian Man, though it is defenitely more interesting than I am making it sound. More than that, many artists of those eras did commissioned work of biblical stuff just so that they could go back to doing their own art, free of the influence of Christianity. There was a lot more doubt in that era than you may think, as highlighted in the extensive book called, Doubt by Jennifer Michael Hecht.
And yes, civilization is probably 50,000- 80,000 year old. Just don't depend on the History Department of your University to explain this, because they have absolutely no "stones" to do such a thing.
I think that you're making two mistakes here.
First, the only people to whom we should provide opportunities to learn about Buddhism are people who are open to Buddhism. Otherwise, you're trying to force something on them, which is not a very Buddhist thing to do (and, how do you like it when someone has tried to force some religious stream on you?).
Second, for those who are open to Buddhism...what's the problem? I just Googled Buddhism and got 56.3 million hits. If you go to your local bookstore, you're likely to find at least a dozen books about Buddhism...some shallow, some too deep for most...but all have food for thought. And if you go to Amazon books, you will find 26,706 entires. There is no shortage of information out there.
Religion is a Latin word that means "to submit". Philosophy doesn't ask this of you, it asks you to "consider". Maybe the problem we have is using the word "religion" when talking about Buddhism. Perhaps?
And what about places in the world that have fully embraced Buddhism? Cambodia, for example, is 95% Buddhist. Is there a significant difference in the degree of suffering between Cambodia and a country like the U.S.? Sure, that could be sufficient for some to reconsider their behavior and possibly become more caring. Here you seem to be defining Buddha nature as kind and caring action. How will this definition of Buddha nature successfully achieve the happiness and wellbeing of all life forms? And are you sure that every human being can appreciate and identify with this definition? Getting back to Cambodia where the population is 95% Buddhist. Does happiness prevail over suffering for most Cambodians? If not, have they got it wrong somehow? The Four Nobel Truths could be presented without mentioning the Buddha but, lol, are not these truths in themselves rather intimidating? It could be called something like, oh, I don't know, how about "The Secret" or "The Power of Now" or "Big Mind"...
Not exactly new territory you're covering, but, there is always room for a new label. We do have the skills but we are using them (tools and skill) very unskillfully? Am I reading that right? Most importantly, as I see it, you're not clear about what the "core teachings" are.
Thank you.
But to get back to the point, are you or are you not saying that Christianity was/is the dominant religion, morality, in the West? That was what I was driving at in terms of quoting the inspirations for art and architecture throughout Europe for the past millenium.
I still don't apply this one nearly enough, but at least I'm mindful of it now--when someone else does something and I immediately start to grumble inwardly, I stop myself and think, "Okay, it's up to me to be miserable about this or just realize it's not that big a deal."
I know, or feel very, very strongly, that this teaching would help a certain friend of mine. She feels absolutely helpless in the face of life--the smallest thing undoes her, even the way a cashier places the change on the checkout counter; if she thinks the cashier has done it carelessly, she perceives a harm done to herself, that the cashier must be harboring some disrespect or meanness toward her. I mean, it's really intense. More than anyone I currently know, she would benefit from shifting even a tiny bit of responsibility for her feelings to herself, empowering herself to decide how she feels instead of placing literally all the power in everyone else's hands.
I don't believe in the need to convert the masses to Buddhism, but if anyone decides to follow the Buddhist path as the result of learning more about it, I certainly would be happy, since I feel it's a very, very healthy philosophy, psychologically, and relieves an incredible amount of pressure particularly in modern lives. But even if a person just gets a little bit of benefit from this or that teaching, I think that's fine, and very important in its own right.
There is something called The Mind and Life Institute whose mission is to "build a scientific understanding of the mind to reduce suffering and promote well being." They meet every couple years with HHDL to compare notes and get new ideas for areas of research.
One member Richard Davidson has done some pioneering work on the effects of meditation and has a new book about the emotional life of the brain.
Etymology of 'religion,' from religare "to bind fast." What good is a religion that fails to "bind"? No good at all.