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?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I liked that for some reason, thanks @PedantricPorpoise
The spectrum is visible within a student, too (or at least it is in me). When everything's going fine I can be very practice-oriented but when in great fear or worry something opens up in my heart and mind and I feel a strong need to ask for help from enlightened beings, or to recite a simple mantra to calm myself down rather than do a more intellectual reading or practice.
I think the spectrum is powerful and addresses the spectrum of needs and the reality of ever-shifting mental states.
If there is a school which stresses one and only one teacher, though, that is usually (always, in my personal experience) a danger sign. The best practices are illuminated and enhanced by studying views from other teachers and other schools, even if the views differ in spots--it provides perspective.
Another thing to think about is that--and I'll use a Tibetan example since that's the only one I have experience with--as far as I know, all Tibetan schools have been shaped and illuminated by great masters from other Tibetan schools. These masters, from multiple schools, are spoken of often, in reverential and respectful tones, in my experience. It makes no sense that ones school, then, would only today suddenly be limited to one teacher's view.
It doesn't mean there's nothing to be learned from that teacher. But this is why it's so important to observe the teacher for years before taking him/her as your root teacher--you want to be sure their beliefs don't require you to violate yours, and that his/her logic doesn't fly in the face of the school's historical logic, and of Buddhist logic in general. It doesn't mean a teacher whose beliefs differ from your own is a bad teacher or a bad person. It just means it may not be a good match.
( faith ) and secular Buddhism ( reason ) are like chalk and cheese.
I now see it is almost everyone posting here!
The scenario is quite familar to me, a person that just likes to party, to drink a lot, and dedicates his life to shallowness like to call himself a buddhist.
Think for example of the infamous "Buddha Bar"
They believe Buddhism is some kind of anarchism where you satisfy all your desires.
The ultimate dinning experience!
I think "fake Buddhist" is just as hard, or perhaps harder, to define than "Buddhist." Certainly, having a Buddhist statue doesn't make one a Buddhist any more than having a Lenin statue makes one a Communist.
But some people who drink or go to parties or seem to be dedicated to shallowness are in fact Buddhists--it doesn't mean they're fake, it may just mean they are only so far in their practice.
Is a medical student on his/her first day of school a medical student? Technically, yes, but on day one they may be indistinguishable from an engineering student. It depends on where you are on your path.
If I were inclined to use the term "fake Buddhist" at all, I would probably reserve it for people who feel strongly they are not Buddhist, but are posing as Buddhists for some surreptitious reason.
If one imagines how far a business could get under the name Jesus Bar, Rabbi Bar, or Mohammed Bar, it does show that all is not equal on this playing field; at the same time, it could indicate that Buddhists are a little less rigid and not so easily offended.
If I had any humility, I would change but then I would be an improper changeling of some other realm . . .
The balance of faith-sradda/insight-prajna...
Individuals as well as organizations are included in the balancing act.
where + means balance..
The balance is obtained by opening, which you could say as perfect equanimity..
Avidya (ignorance) is closing down to experience.
A couple of thoughts to ponder...I am not sure they are true, but they have served me well so far.
I think it is important to understand the difference between the ideal and the actual.
Folks who I've thought were truely awake, loung supine in the actual.
The ideal however, often arises as a long term couch for those dreamers
who'd rather be somewhere other than where they really are.
Many mistake balance for spiritual conformity (the mimicking of the spiritual experience.) but if it doesn't manifest as fluidity, it's just another mental construct to let go of.
I have heard empty (not in a good sense) platitudes from 'advanced' practitioners and great wisdom from dharma children.
We have to look to the results.
From what I know and experience, devoted practice in a life affirming way, transforms us and no doubt, the 'transformation is empty' pseuds.
I know that put in a difficult situation, my old karma reasserts.
Be kind, offer what you have, do what you can is probably the best I can do . . . and probably not as decidedly as my heroes and teachers, my yidams and fantasy Buddhas . . . :rarr:
However I have seen film footage of members of the NK being attacked verbally and physically by a screaming mob of supporters of the DL.
It is a matter of record that NK sanghas of monks and nuns have been driven by force from their monasteries and nunneries.
There have been murders on both sides of the schism.
Lets not assume anything.
Tibetan politics can rumble along as nastily now as it has for hundreds of years. It does not need our gasolene.
Or with less publicity the DL choosing " tulkus" against the deliberations of the heads of other schools in order to retain control over monasteries that prior to the Chinese Invasion had nothing to do with the DL.
Tibetan politics have nothing to learn from Machiavelli.
I think "fake" can only really apply to people who pose as Buddhists for some other purpose, having no intention-not even the slightest, not even culturally or superficially--of being Buddhist.
I think you could say that someone who feels they are Buddhist but only mildly or superficially is a "superficial" Buddhist or something, but "fake" to me implies deliberate deception.
It would be like paintings--a fake Rembrandt could be excellent, could appear to be a Rembrandt in every way, whereas a terrible artist trying honestly to emulate Rembrandt's style could turn out something shoddy, but original, honest and and genuinely-intentioned.
Looks can be deceiving...a person practicing what looks like perfect Buddhism on the surface, seeking only to deceive, is more fake to me than an ailing Buddhist.
We can still discuss which is living more by the Buddha's advice, but "fake" to me would be the deceiver, and maybe "imperfect" (myself definitely included) for the others.
And it's probably better yet to label the actions rather than the person--practicing Buddhism deceptively, versus practicing Buddhism imperfectly, maybe?
Just my personal labels, tho!
But that isn't really any of your business. What do their choices have to do with you? How does that affect you?
Yes alas...thats me doomed then. Tut tut.
It's all self-definition, then, but one could at least see if the original religion had a clearly-stated definition of itself, and see if the neo-religion meets that definition.
It seems to me that Buddhism does have a largely-accepted self-definition, one which has allowed most Buddhist schools and sects today to consider each other Buddhist, while disagreeing on some aspects.
To me, none of the above strike me as fake, though; just divergent. A "fake" wants to be seen as genuine while secretly knowing it's not genuine, whereas a "not-fake" fully believes it is genuine.
"Fake" may be a problematic and judgemental word in many ways, but I think it still retains some practical, non-judgmental use as a term. Since we can't know what's in someone else's mind, though, the only way to try and determine whether they're being deceptive is to judge their actions and hazard a guess.
Most of the time it may not be our business, but now and then there's a question of being personally harmed by someone who is deceptive, and then I think that discussion is valid and necessary, though no less sticky, and it still requires just as much compassion as the discussion on ignorance.
Though as has been observed there is also self-deception, which arguably we all suffer from in varying degrees.
Here is a list of my sham activities:
No respect for the wishes of parents. Abandonment of my duties. Teaching dharma before personal enlightenment . . . wait a minute that is the Buddha.
Ah well there may be hope even for the worst of us fakes . . . :clap:
Did the Buddha teach before he was enlightenened?