Are some people incapable of following Buddhism?

Jeffrey

Is it impossible for them?


I am thinking of like a killer who is so turned around that it is unlikely that the thought would even occur to them that hurting others is wrong and ultimately hurts the self. How could that be turned around by picking up a sutra or dharma book? Can they make any progress? What motivation would they have to start meditating if they think only in terms of dominance. And I will argue there is a spectrum. But the sticking point is how can Buddhism teach someone who does not want to learn.

The Jewel Ornament of Liberation says that there are people who cannot live the dharma in this life. They do not have both the leisure and endowment. Endowment means several external conditions like: not a barbarian and alive in a world with a Buddha whose teachings are available. Internal endowment are the mental factors which you need to pursue the dharma.

Do you have any ideas how to turn people around who don't want to stop hurting people? There must be some hurt in them that is strangled, a little spark of compassion. But how to light that compassion to transform such a person?

lobster

Sometimes questions hinder our progress. Why ask a question beyond our skill and capacity, there are answers we can provide and a destination. When we reach the destination what can be achieved is clear enough.

Zero

Jeffrey said:

Is it impossible for them?

How could that be turned around by picking up a sutra or dharma book? Can they make any progress? What motivation would they have to start meditating if they think only in terms of dominance. And I will argue there is a spectrum.

But the sticking point is how can Buddhism teach someone who does not want to learn.

Do you have any ideas how to turn people around who don't want to stop hurting people?

There must be some hurt in them that is strangled, a little spark of compassion. But how to light that compassion to transform such a person?

In my mind, all people have broadly the same potential... my friend vehemently opposes this position - I can sometimes convince him by softening the variety of human behaviour by stepping back a little to a position where subjectivity can loosen its grip...

so for example, it is clear that people's faces are very different however a huge amount of brain processing is dedicated to noticing the differences - there is research into people with brain damage who are unable to distinguish faces - sort of like ants - they all look the same right? well not to an ant they dont.

Similarly with behaviours for example - there at first glance appears to be varied reactions however on closer examination the variances are all within a particular set - only by attempting to step out of the set / consider alternative sets within the particular logic system, can we begin to contemplate the similarities in our differences.

Like I say - I have mixed success with him as he does with me!

I'm not sure that Buddhism per se is a universal balm - however I do think that if one is sincere and honest in exploration of self and environment then Buddhism will have much to say on the issue - some of which may stick.

The motivation has to be there to drive development - I suppose if one looks for a universal result then it may be challenging considering development in all of its variations - otherwise, I suppose everyone by being alive has 'motivation' and will be 'developing' no matter what.

Attempting to take an active role in someone else's life and development may be a red herring - perhaps all that can be done is to live your life and pass on what you're able when youre able without expecting that it is possible to turn anyone else and nor that one is in a position to expect to know which way is best to turn!

So in a way - perhaps do it your way, honestly and completely - let the outcome be your example / energy to turn others if they are so inclined - don't sweat it too much...

genkaku

I have always been grateful to those who simply do not give a discernible shit about Buddhism and seem to get along pretty well. They are great instructors, not least in the sense that my own inflated views get a richly-deserved reality check.

To my mind, there is "Buddhism," the stuff that anyone might espouse and practice from within a given format. And then there is Buddhism ... which might otherwise be called "life."

Who is immune from the sense of "unsatisfactoriness" that "Buddhism" alludes to? It's just human, isn't it? But whether someone chooses to address such unsatisfactoriness with "Buddhism" is a personal matter ... just a matter of circumstance. Are those who are not "Buddhists" more or less fortunate on account of it? I haven't got a clue and wouldn't presume to say I did have one. Whether anyone might benefit from "Buddhism" is really not my call.

Where there is poor or nasty or unkind behavior, I see nothing wrong with calling it out. Perhaps "Buddhism" is a good and healing and helpful suggestion. But, equally, perhaps it is not.