Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
"Fake" Buddhists?
DaftChris
Spiritually conflicted. Not of this world. Veteran
In addition to this site, I'm also a member of a Hindu forum. The majority people on that forum are friendly, informative and open. However, there are quite a few who are vocal about their disdain for "neo-Hindus"; those who mold Brahman to fit their own philosophical leanings, those who don't literally believe in the incarnations, etc.
This bugs me, because A.) If I were a Hindu, I would be (in some members definition) a "neo-Hindu"; as I have a different idea of what "god" would be and I don't think Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesha, etc. actually exist and B.) It got me thinking: If that was what some people would consider a fake Hindu, what would be the characteristics of a fake Buddhist?
In your opinion, how do you know when someone is not sincere with their Buddhism?
This bugs me, because A.) If I were a Hindu, I would be (in some members definition) a "neo-Hindu"; as I have a different idea of what "god" would be and I don't think Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesha, etc. actually exist and B.) It got me thinking: If that was what some people would consider a fake Hindu, what would be the characteristics of a fake Buddhist?
In your opinion, how do you know when someone is not sincere with their Buddhism?
1
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Okay, this made me laugh.
Never mind.
I really do not know if this is true. Tamil resources in general do not like Mahinda... lol.
In your opinion, how do you know when someone is not sincere with their Buddhism?
Define sincere or not sincere? Are we not just as sincere as we are?
The answer to such a question beckons to black and white definitions that have little meaning on my Zafu.
If they have a Zen-like garden with a Buddha seated serenely under bamboo, next to a soothingly bubbling fountain, and they wear loose flowy clothing, with a mala round their neck, it's possible they may pt themselves across as being Buddhist.
However:
If they think nothing of swatting flies or kicking the dog;
If they think taking the odd pencil/pen/stapler from work is no big deal;
If they think it would be fun to have an affair with the neighbour's hot spouse;
If they (consequently) gossip about their neighbour's obviously inadequate sex life, and lie about their own prowess;
If they regularly consume a six-pack of beer and smoke a smelly reefer -
chances are, Buddhism is not their priority....
See..... It's all in the 'do', not the 'say'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
these people are not Buddhist imo. They are from the NKT.. protesting the Dalai Lama because he doesn't condone the propitiation of a spirit that has been found to be nothing but controversial ever since it made its first appearance during the Fifth Dalai Lamas life.. it arose in opposition of him.
Anybody who protests another Buddhist is ridiculous.
It is controversial, which is why it is known as the Dorje Shugden Controversy.
His Holiness is likely never going to change his stance on that topic.. he is not going into their homes and preventing them from practicing it. All he has done is said that he recommends one to not do such practices.
If these people are convinced that they are 100% right then they should have compassion for His Holiness instead of petty picketing protests.
The very title of this thread is " "Fake" Buddhists".
That being typed, anybody that posts in here will be posting nothing but their opinions on whether such things should even be thought about or what they consider to be fake or examples of what a fake Buddhist could be.
In my opinion and example.. a Buddhist protesting another Buddhist is not a Buddhist..
it is frightening.
People will respond.. or react, to what they will though.
I'm somewhat a fan of the DL, but that doesn't mean that Buddhists with other viewpoints should just shut up.
If one looks at the history one can see that for hundreds of years this spirit has been creating controversy.
That is one of the main things that many claim Shugden brings, is disharmony within Tibetan Buddhism and wow has it ever. Really what beneficial contributions has this spirit provided? Are there books written by this spirit, teachings, discourses etc etc?
For one, it is a spirit. Why would anyone centralize a pratice around something as petty at a spirit.
The truth as the Dalai Lama sees it is that it is spirit worship and is not at all beneficial to anybody.
They are human beings, which in general are quite nice
Though it is deeply disturbing all that has gone on with regards to the controversy. It is difficult for me to not get wound up about it.
I was in the lobby of one of their centers and noticed that they had no books by anybody else but the head of the organization.. that was a bit unnerving as well.
I apologize for any disharmony I have brought here.. when one is as ignorant as I it can be difficult to think and see clearly.
Your accusation is inappropriate.
It is my understanding that one should be so
busy practicing that looking unto others' path would
be distracting to the one doing the looking over, and
the one getting 'looked' upon, therefore,
not being beneficial to any of the beings involved.
I'll get over it someday.
Bleah.
But who knows ... maybe some day he will try out Buddhism.
Its all perception, construction.
If you want to see people as faking buddhist then you will paint that.
I didn't say that you said they are rules, but the examples you give are all Precepts. And what I am saying is if (note how I worded it) "people on this forum keep saying that the Precepts...are not rules, only guidelines," then how could we criticize people who self-identify as Buddhists but don't keep the not rules.
In general, I agree with what you posted.
But, if all you discuss on a forum are the things you agree about, then there's no reason to have the forum because you rarely learn anything.
Personally, I am very strong on the 5 Precepts, because I see them as the minimum. But after being on this forum, I have softened a bit. I have at least learned that a considerable number of people see them in a different light than do I. And even before I "softened" it didn't mean that I expect people to be perfect. To me it's the striving for perfection (which none of us will ever reach) that's important.
For example, to those on the forum who drink and take drugs, I strongly disagree. But I don't condemn them, nor do I say they are "not a Buddhist".
If we see people in different lights over time, and we are attached to them as they were, we 1) had a deluded belief, 2) we deny the permanence of change, 3) and we experience the karma/suffering of attachment.
I went to a retreat at their temple and they had a "puja" on the Saturday night. They had a photo of their guru on a chair at the front of the temple and they all bowed down to it and chanted some song about him.
I don't bow down to anybody! (maybe that's my ego getting in the way).
I am going to another retreat up there in a few weeks. I'll be sitting in the cafe reading a book on the Saturday night though...no puja for me!!
Nice people though...
what I continue to find puzzling online though, is people who are convinced that they have the only understanding of Buddhism which is relevant and then proceed to control,admonish and ridicule others who try to discuss differing perspectives - I guess it is evidence of how it is easy to give ourselves permission to forget the basics when we believe we are right about a more advanced point.
Enjoy your meditation class.
the reason we first come to learn and practice Buddhism is not because we are fully enlightened beings.
While all claim to be both, all seem to have one or the other as the foundation of their practise. Those who place the primary focus on the devotional usually also apply this practise towards their teacher, which is understandable.
The devotionally oriented schools nearly always elevate their teacher & his/her understanding above others while the meditative tend to just do it for themselves.
I doubt that the attachments of one is much worse than the other, just the optics.
That must have irked me more than I thought.
:scratch: