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.
Secular Buddhism? Religious Buddhism? Why not both? Or neither?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Know thy true self.
BUT ....
There are those who believe that nestorian Christianity has certain influences on both Bon and Buddhism in Tibet - material culture mostly.
There are plenty of example of fusion between Bon and Buddhism in Tibet - in fact, some people can't tell the difference between the two.
In Christianity there are lots of example. Look at this time of the year. Christmas Trees, Yule Logs, Wreaths, feasting, gift exchange, Santa Claus, even the date, all a part of a traditional Christian Christmas, is adopted from pagan traditions that Chritianity encountered in Europe as it spread. Fusion. Purposive evolution.
Christbuddhistianity - lol that's a good one. It will probably happen. Give it a few centuries.
And you're saying that Christianity is not Christianity because of Santa Clause?
Where did you go to school? :wtf:
Straw Man
Ad Hom
Ad Hom
Uh, are you trying to say that Bon is not Bon?
Uh, are you trying to say that Bon is not Bon?
Straw man again!
Swing ...... and a miss.
A Straw Man is, technically, an informal falacy and as such does not merit direct ressponse.
Sorry.
address a question that clearly and intentionally misrepresents my position?
Homey don't play that game.
Sorry...
Here's my post: Anywhere in here where I even hint at being of the position that Christianity is not Christianity or Tibetan Buddhism isn't Buddhism because of foriegn cultural influence?
Nope.
Nevermind is SOL, as they say.
In addition, NM's strawman would fall under "assertion" and it's up to the person making the assertion to prove it true not another to prove false. 1st year high school debate team stuff.
Nope.
Nevermind is SOL, as they say.
In addition, NM's strawman would fall under "assertion" and it's up to the person making the assertion to prove it true not another to prove false. 1st year high school debate team stuff.
I really am misinformed, cuz like, I had no idea that Christmas Trees, Yule Logs, Wreaths, feasting, gift exchange, and Santa Claus were religions. Separate religions that fused with Christianity. Oh wait, no, he refers to them as "pagan traditions," not religions. Silly me.
In this case, NM hasn't represented the points I'm making, at all. That's technically a straw man of course. If that's not my point why should I address it? Make you happy?
See, that's an Ad Hom. You shouldn't respond to that because it attacks you and not your point.
For me to repsong to your post, with "OH, so now your saying that I'm dismissive!" is a straw man. You're not calling me dismissive and thats not your point. It doesn't merit a response from you because you didn't say that and it's not incubment on you to try to refute it.
You see that a lot on boards like this. People throw up straw men all the time, but that doesn't mean any of us should be expected to respond.
Go after my ponts directly and I'm happy to respond. Make shit up, and you can talk to the hand.
@Nevermind and @Chaz - Shin Buddhism as it is practiced now has LOTS of parallels with (liberal) Protestant Christianity.
They have Reverends that can marry and have families; being a Pure Land sect, they focus their practice on a single messianic figure of Amida Buddha; "services" generally follow the format of a Protestant church (chanting/singing and a dhamma talk); some of the temples are even part of the "Buddhist Churches of America." Shin Buddhism was also formed as a reaction against the "elitism" of other schools of Buddhism (sound familiar?).
Just a few examples, but if you're interested, you can always read more.
I was in a Chinese Mahayana temple and they had chairs lined up like pews (just like the Jodo Shinshu temple) and they had kneelers like Roman Catholic Churches do.
But re: Bon & Buddhism, Buddhist monks had to graft Buddhism onto existing traditional beliefs in order to "sell it" to local shamanists. Though one isn't supposed to corrupt the teachings of the Buddha, converting animists and shamanists to Buddhism was considered the greater good, so they did what they had to do in order to spread the Dharma.
Buddhism scholar Giuseppe Tucci, who lived in the old Tibet, does a great job of teasing out the shamanic elements and the folk elements and Hindu tantra from Buddhism in Tibet, and showing how they blend together to create a new form of Buddhism. Very insightful. For example, Central Asian culture emphasized the importance of the soul. This lives on in many ways in Tibetan Buddhism, not the least of which is the whole reincarnation and tulku tradition. Fascinating.
(see Tucci: Religions of Tibet. There's a companion book by another author: Religions of Mongolia)
1) Chaz never said remotely that Buddhism was not Buddhism. That would be like saying 'sooo an onion is not an onion?' Unless this is a miscommunication of words it would be absolutely ridiculous to propose Chaz said those two quotations.
2) He also never remotely said Christianity is not Christianity because of Santa Claus. Chad never remotely said that and moreover it is a ridiculous saying.
Finally this Is obviously an ad hominem.
(Revenge for Dali Lama)
So-called Secular Buddhism could very well develop into a full-blown school of Buddhism. A religion if you like. There's two major hurdles and one's for Buddhism as it stands now to recognize it as such, it will have to have a founding teacher reach enlightenment. Every other Buddhist school has that. It will also have to have some cohesive teachings that can identify it. (Kagyu has Mahamudra, Nyingma has Dzogchen, etc) It seems like "Secular" Buddhism is mainly concerned with defining itself, so for now not many will it seriously.
If it can develop an enlightenment lineage and it's own set of teachings passed down from enlightened teachers, it will, over time, begin to exert some influence.
Things may change as time goes on - SC may continue to devlop and it may simply end up a flash in the pan. Time will tell.
We let go of preconceived idea and open.
Our minds are by nature clarity thus eventually the insight comes
When the insight comes we have a feeling that is good (or bad when not come)
This WOW is kinda cool.
Actually, the purpose of a shrine like that is to affect your thought process - bring more towards symbolic thought.
Little known factoid for ya:
Our timing of our Christmas celebration is the same as the old Roman holiday of Saturnalia. Biggest holiday in the Roman calendar. Among other things it was marked with feating and gift exchanging.
Sound familiar?
Are you going to say that I do?
It sounds to me like you're actually an agnostic Buddhist rather than a secular Buddhist?
2. By stating such a definition, again, you're making a concept black or white.
3. Since you love definitions so much, here is the definition of agnostic: "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god; a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something". In my firm view, Buddha was an extremely wise man who developed a comprehensive perspective of the human condition. Since he was a man it is not appropriate to worship him, though one may give him homage ("special honor or respect").
4. You seem to insist on labeling me, but how you label me is of no importance.
How others label you or me -- at least in this setting -- is of little significance.
On the other hand, he does reject the mythology that grew up around Buddhism later, such as the miracle of the Buddha's birth, etc. And he argues that the later sutras, the ones that present the concept of Buddhanature and the True Self (among others) are Hindu-influenced. So it's arguable that he's truly agnostic. But he very clearly states regarding rebirth that "we don't know", we can't prove or disprove, which is an agnostic position.
You missed (maybe not, your post just didn't address it) the point I made about the 'saeculum' within which we unpack Buddhism. Of course 'meaningless' characterizes even this point I'm making (as well as the rest of this thread, I swear it's like an enormous weaverbird nest and will knock the whole tree over).
It's trite and obvious to say Buddhism of this time is all modern. This lengthy nonsensical thread demonstrates more about folks finding another cup of gasoline to keep the bonfire going than a clarifying debate.
Gassho
Yep. I'm surprised the thread wasn't closed 4 pages ago. But some of us get away with doing this quite often, and some of us don't. (I'm in the latter group... always getting my hand smacked for much less...) :coffee:
::: watches for the ruler! ::: LOL
Can I criticize Christianity and still call myself agnostic?
But words will never harm me.
. . . which is fine for children but words can perspire, expire, inspire and above all become redundant . . . or so I have heard . . .
:wave: