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.
What are the most controversial topics in Buddhism?
One my early Meditation instructors taught us a Tonglen visualization that Roach developed. I still use it.
Despite that, Roach has created his share of controversy. He sent word to the office of the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala that he would be bringing a group of students with him to the DL's teaching in Dharamasala and asked for a group audience. The DL's not only refused an audience but advise Roach to not come to Dharamasala at all.
The story in the Rolling Stone piece shows how far out of hand such things can get.
I think in order to become a more established tradition, they need a leader that everybody would agree to follow.
Not only that, the Buddhist traditions of today all claim a lineage of enlightenment, so it can be said that traditions in Buddhism more or less require that.
To date, Secular Buddhism has yet to produced an enlightened master. In fact, there are some Secular Buddhists who don't believe in enlightenment is even possible. That being the case, aparently, it's difficult to call Secular Buddhism a tradition, from a mainstream Buddhist perspective.
I think the most controversial things here are the egos.
Indeed. The noisiest and most useless part of our being. However even the obstacles can be used skilfully . . . or is that just a controversy?
People are attracted to comments such as: - Was the Sangha the first Gay Commune? - My Roshi is more enlightened than your Lama. - Don't advise me, I am suffering perfectly well without your interference.
However we can sometimes refine the controversy: - Are Buddhists who believe in many lifetimes just lazy practitioners? - Should I meditate more or more than I did? - Can I think myself into enlightenment?
Sorry, double post - it would be helpful to be able to delete posts but I haven't found a way of doing it.
0
matthewmartinAmateur BodhisattvaSuburbs of Mt MeruVeteran
re: enlightened masters in any tradition For every unfounded, unprovable, undisprovable claim of enlightenment in anyone (be it a nice person or merely famous), I raise you two unfounded, unprovable, undisprovable claims of enlightenment in two more people.
I wonder if there is a corollary to the rule in Theravada that one shouldn't make enlightenment claims about oneself, maybe one shouldn't make enlightenment claims about others.
To date, Secular Buddhism has yet to produced an enlightened master.
Give them time.
Speaking of controversial When you look at the definition Secular or spirituality....There is an argument to be made that the Buddha himself was a secular enlightened master.
To date, Secular Buddhism has yet to produced an enlightened master.
Give them time.
Speaking of controversial When you look at the definition Secular or spirituality....There is an argument to be made that the Buddha himself was a secular enlightened master.
There certainly is. As was said in another thread all the baggage that he threw out was dragged back in over the following 500 years .... The Buddha of Herman Hesse's 'Siddhartha ' is probably a very accurate pen portrait of the real historical person.
To date, Secular Buddhism has yet to produced an enlightened master.
Give them time.
Oh OH! It's about time we Secular Buddhists got together and elected our first enlightened master, isn't it? Only...doing that would make us non-secular, wouldn't it? We'd be establishing a sect of followers. Gonna have to think about it.
At any rate, I'd nominate Stephen Fry. Even if he's not a Buddhist. Even if he claims he's not enlightened or a master (that's for us to decide, isn't it?)
I think in order to become a more established tradition, they need a leader that everybody would agree to follow.
Not only that, the Buddhist traditions of today all claim a lineage of enlightenment, so it can be said that traditions in Buddhism more or less require that.
To date, Secular Buddhism has yet to produced an enlightened master. In fact, there are some Secular Buddhists who don't believe in enlightenment is even possible. That being the case, aparently, it's difficult to call Secular Buddhism a tradition, from a mainstream Buddhist perspective.
At this point, they already have a leader people are happy to follow: S. Batchelor. As far as the lineage of enlightenment goes, that isn't relevant to secular Buddhism, being that it's secular, and all.
The whole question of supposedly enlightened masters who tend to be viewed as semi-divine quasi-Buddhas is very controversial, especially in Zen. Zen scholar Stuart Lachs says that those who have been given the title of Zen master are not enlightened, but received the title for other motives, such as being the son of the owner of the temple, or being good fundraisers for the temple, or being skillful at recruiting new members. He said attaching a historic lineage of enlightened masters to a new teacher serves to include the new teacher in a mythological lineage of enlightened beings, elevating the temple master to quasi-divine status that cant be questioned. This isn't a good thing when the master begins to engage in misconduct of one sort or another.
See: The Zen Master In America: Dressing the Donkey in Bells and Scarves; and Means of Authorization http://lachs.inter-link.com/
To date, Secular Buddhism has yet to produced an enlightened master.
Give them time.
Oh OH! It's about time we Secular Buddhists got together and elected our first enlightened master, isn't it? Only...doing that would make us non-secular, wouldn't it? We'd be establishing a sect of followers. Gonna have to think about it.
At any rate, I'd nominate Stephen Fry. Even if he's not a Buddhist. Even if he claims he's not enlightened or a master (that's for us to decide, isn't it?)
I think in order to become a more established tradition, they need a leader that everybody would agree to follow.
Not only that, the Buddhist traditions of today all claim a lineage of enlightenment, so it can be said that traditions in Buddhism more or less require that.
To date, Secular Buddhism has yet to produced an enlightened master. In fact, there are some Secular Buddhists who don't believe in enlightenment is even possible. That being the case, aparently, it's difficult to call Secular Buddhism a tradition, from a mainstream Buddhist perspective.
At this point, they already have a leader people are happy to follow: S. Batchelor. As far as the lineage of enlightenment goes, that isn't relevant to secular Buddhism, being that it's secular, and all.
The whole question of supposedly enlightened masters who tend to be viewed as semi-divine quasi-Buddhas is very controversial, especially in Zen. Zen scholar Stuart Lachs says that those who have been given the title of Zen master are not enlightened, but received the title for other motives, such as being the son of the owner of the temple, or being good fundraisers for the temple, or being skillful at recruiting new members. He said attaching a historic lineage of enlightened masters to a new teacher serves to include the new teacher in a mythological lineage of enlightened beings, elevating the temple master to quasi-divine status that cant be questioned. This isn't a good thing when the master begins to engage in misconduct of one sort or another.
See: The Zen Master In America: Dressing the Donkey in Bells and Scarves; and Means of Authorization http://lachs.inter-link.com/
Doesn't HHDL say his religion is kindness and he is a simple monk? And also Lama means they have done a three year retreat. It doesn't mean the person is enlightened. My teacher has never said "oh by the way I am a Bodhisattva even though I suspect she is".
Extremely...New Buddhist is an exception. Try arguing a Theravadin position on Dharma Wheel or a Mahayanist position of Dhamma Wheel...oy vey.
I think it's quite reasonable for Dharma Wheel and Dhamma Wheel to focus on their respective traditions - they're clearly set up like that. New Buddhist is a pan-Buddhist forum, and or course there are pros and cons to that.
Oh OH! It's about time we Secular Buddhists got together and elected our first enlightened master, isn't it? Only...doing that would make us non-secular, wouldn't it? We'd be establishing a sect of followers. Gonna have to think about it.
Indeed. :clap: As some of us may suspect, we are not all going in the same direction, prepared to run, walk or even sit down and be wheeled. Some are developing insight and other controversial arisings. Some won't go anywhere for a dose of wisdom http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/msl/msl.htm . . . . unless it says prajna on the label . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_in_Buddhism
Extremely...New Buddhist is an exception. Try arguing a Theravadin position on Dharma Wheel or a Mahayanist position of Dhamma Wheel...oy vey.
I think it's quite reasonable for Dharma Wheel and Dhamma Wheel to focus on their respective traditions - they're clearly set up like that. New Buddhist is a pan-Buddhist forum, and or course there are pros and cons to that.
Certainly. I think it only becomes an issue if those used to a pan-Buddhist forum wander into a forum dedicated to a particular view...then it can be oy vey-ish. The shock that comes from seeing Buddhists of one school rejecting the views of another school, sometimes vehemently... can be unnerving, thats clear from the subsequent responses. There is however a more pernicious mind set imo. Its one where the fact that the holder of views that are sectarian is largely unconscious of the fact because at an unconscious level they assume that their school has the real dope...
Its one where the fact that the holder of views that are sectarian is largely unconscious of the fact because at an unconscious level they assume that their school has the real dope...
Yes, I think you can find people like that in all traditions. Perhaps it's a failure to realise the important distinction between saying "This tradition is the best for me" and saying "This tradition is the best."
I am happy that not being sectarian (overly) is part of the character of NB. It allows me to hear Theravadan and Zen etc views without getting involved in the oy vey (or whatever) flaming. This makes me want to get my own views down pat so I know what I am saying.
At this point, they already have a leader people are happy to follow: S. Batchelor. As far as the lineage of enlightenment goes, that isn't relevant to secular Buddhism, being that it's secular, and all.
The whole question of supposedly enlightened masters who tend to be viewed as semi-divine quasi-Buddhas is very controversial, especially in Zen. Zen scholar Stuart Lachs says that those who have been given the title of Zen master are not enlightened, but received the title for other motives, such as being the son of the owner of the temple, or being good fundraisers for the temple, or being skillful at recruiting new members. He said attaching a historic lineage of enlightened masters to a new teacher serves to include the new teacher in a mythological lineage of enlightened beings, elevating the temple master to quasi-divine status that cant be questioned. This isn't a good thing when the master begins to engage in misconduct of one sort or another.
See: The Zen Master In America: Dressing the Donkey in Bells and Scarves; and Means of Authorization http://lachs.inter-link.com/
Doesn't HHDL say his religion is kindness and he is a simple monk? And also Lama means they have done a three year retreat. It doesn't mean the person is enlightened. My teacher has never said "oh by the way I am a Bodhisattva even though I suspect she is".
That's great, Jeffrey. It sounds like you have a highly ethical and also a humble teacher who doesn't need to cite her lineage (though she studied under Kalu Rinpoche and the 16th Karmapa, didn't she?) But if you look at any Dharma mag, you'll see retreats and seminars offered by various teachers, and it's often stated what lineage they're from. I guess this is more the case with reincarnate lamas.
Yes, HHDL says he's just a simple monk, but everyone knows he's said to be the incarnation of Avalokitishvara. To his credit, he's very humble.
This makes me want to get my own views down pat so I know what I am saying.
Yes, trying to explain ( at times ) complicated stuff in an accessible way to others is a good practice for developing one's own understanding.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Comments
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/sex-and-death-on-the-road-to-nirvana-20130606?print=true
One my early Meditation instructors taught us a Tonglen visualization that Roach developed. I still use it.
Despite that, Roach has created his share of controversy. He sent word to the office of the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala that he would be bringing a group of students with him to the DL's teaching in Dharamasala and asked for a group audience. The DL's not only refused an audience but advise Roach to not come to Dharamasala at all.
The story in the Rolling Stone piece shows how far out of hand such things can get.
To date, Secular Buddhism has yet to produced an enlightened master. In fact, there are some Secular Buddhists who don't believe in enlightenment is even possible. That being the case, aparently, it's difficult to call Secular Buddhism a tradition, from a mainstream Buddhist perspective.
Indeed. The noisiest and most useless part of our being. However even the obstacles can be used skilfully . . . or is that just a controversy?
People are attracted to comments such as:
- Was the Sangha the first Gay Commune?
- My Roshi is more enlightened than your Lama.
- Don't advise me, I am suffering perfectly well without your interference.
However we can sometimes refine the controversy:
- Are Buddhists who believe in many lifetimes just lazy practitioners?
- Should I meditate more or more than I did?
- Can I think myself into enlightenment?
. . . and now back to the controversial . . .
For every unfounded, unprovable, undisprovable claim of enlightenment in anyone (be it a nice person or merely famous), I raise you two unfounded, unprovable, undisprovable claims of enlightenment in two more people.
I wonder if there is a corollary to the rule in Theravada that one shouldn't make enlightenment claims about oneself, maybe one shouldn't make enlightenment claims about others.
What would happens to this "tradition" if one its teachers became enlightened and like the Buddha, saw all their past lives?
When you look at the definition Secular or spirituality....There is an argument to be made that the Buddha himself was a secular enlightened master.
As was said in another thread all the baggage that he threw out was dragged back in over the following 500 years ....
The Buddha of Herman Hesse's 'Siddhartha ' is probably a very accurate pen portrait of the real historical person.
At any rate, I'd nominate Stephen Fry. Even if he's not a Buddhist. Even if he claims he's not enlightened or a master (that's for us to decide, isn't it?)
The whole question of supposedly enlightened masters who tend to be viewed as semi-divine quasi-Buddhas is very controversial, especially in Zen. Zen scholar Stuart Lachs says that those who have been given the title of Zen master are not enlightened, but received the title for other motives, such as being the son of the owner of the temple, or being good fundraisers for the temple, or being skillful at recruiting new members. He said attaching a historic lineage of enlightened masters to a new teacher serves to include the new teacher in a mythological lineage of enlightened beings, elevating the temple master to quasi-divine status that cant be questioned. This isn't a good thing when the master begins to engage in misconduct of one sort or another.
See: The Zen Master In America: Dressing the Donkey in Bells and Scarves; and
Means of Authorization http://lachs.inter-link.com/
New Buddhist is a pan-Buddhist forum, and or course there are pros and cons to that.
:rolleyes:
:clap:
As some of us may suspect, we are not all going in the same direction, prepared to run, walk or even sit down and be wheeled.
Some are developing insight and other controversial arisings.
Some won't go anywhere for a dose of wisdom
http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/msl/msl.htm
. . . . unless it says prajna on the label . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_in_Buddhism
Come back Buddha, we needs you . . .
I think it only becomes an issue if those used to a pan-Buddhist forum wander into a forum dedicated to a particular view...then it can be oy vey-ish.
The shock that comes from seeing Buddhists of one school rejecting the views of another school, sometimes vehemently...
can be unnerving, thats clear from the subsequent responses.
There is however a more pernicious mind set imo.
Its one where the fact that the holder of views that are sectarian is largely unconscious of the fact because at an unconscious level they assume that their school has the real dope...
So, yes.
Some definitions are rather gray, aren't they?
Yes, HHDL says he's just a simple monk, but everyone knows he's said to be the incarnation of Avalokitishvara. To his credit, he's very humble.