There Ain't No Pope In Buddhism.
Citta
Veteran
There is no entity called ' Buddhism.'
There is the Buddhadharma.. the teachings of the Buddha.
And there are interpretations of that teaching.
Many interpretations. Some are so different from each other you would think they were not the same subject.
No Pope...the Dalai Lama for instance, despite many misunderstandings , is not only NOT some kind of Buddhist Pope
He is not even the head of Tibetan Buddhism. In fact he is not even the head of the Gelugpa..which is the monastic sect he belongs to.
So when tempted to ask.." what do Buddhists think about."..fill in your own blank...the answer is...there is no agreed answer.
I have known Buddhists who were in favour of capital punishment..war...drugs...junk food...GM crops...abortion...etc etc.
I have known other Buddhists who believe in God, vote Republican, deal on the stock exchange and believe firmly in venture capitalism..
And there is no central authority to say they are wrong.
No one can say that another is ' not really a Buddhist because....'
You have to reflect on things, come to your own views, and be prepared to change them.
Because there ain't no Pope in Buddhism.
Comments
This is great, but surely Buddhism isn't "anything goes," is it? Just as a person can use Christianity to justify all kinds of bad things, an ignorant person may use Buddhism to justify negative actions as well. Hmm...
Buddhism certainly is not anything goes..the point is we have to take responsibilty for our own actions, even if we have a teacher.
As I said there is no central authority figure.
Different schools have different approaches but most agree on doing the least harm as possible...being honest, not taking what is not freely given, truly consensual sex, and so on.
It can be seen that way. Despite many protestations to the contrary, Buddhism doesn't offer much in the way of hard & fast rules for you to live by. You are solely responsible for the path you take. For example, you can't say something unpopular about homosexuals, and then run and hide behind some scripture, laying the blame on the Buddha. You're stuck with what you do. Karma.
You can still do, think, or say whatever you want, so in a sense, anything goes.
As a Buddhist, you are responsible, whether you like it or not.
I think sometimes it seems like "anything goes" because you are not accountable to anyone except yourself.
Reminds me of being a kid. When I lived with my parents, it certainly wasn't "anything goes" because we had rules and curfews and people to report to on what we were doing, and with whom and why and where. We had chores to do whether we wanted to or not. We were accountable to someone, because we didn't really know how, yet, to be accountable to ourselves. But then I moved out, and now, "anything goes" because I am not accountable to anyone on that level. But it doesn't mean there aren't consequences if I choose never to do chores.
Perhaps I should explain what prompted the OP..we get a fair number of posts saying ' what do Buddhists think about...blah blah..'
I wanted to make the point that with a few exceptions Buddhists don't have a collective view of very much really..
AS CTR used to say about Tibetans getting them to agree about anything and organising them was like herding cats...
There are far far too many "pope-like" figures in Buddhism today to my liking, not only the Dalai Lama but in Theravada with these political grand councils of monks and stuff like that. it's just all totally opposite of how it's supposed to be IMO, but I bet the Buddha in his wisdom had a bit of a giggle knowing human nature when he said " let the dhamma be your master".
ahh human nature
.
@Citta Indeed. There is no collective Buddhist group in that way, just individual people who follow various interpretations Buddha's teachings, like you said at first. Totally agree. I think because so many religions are otherwise, until new people get a good grasp of how Buddhism is different it's just a natural question as they are comparing "what Buddhists believe" to what "Christians believe" or "Muslims believe" and so on.
Yes I'm sure you are right @karasti..I wasn't being critical. I think people should ask as many questions as they need..
Oh I know you weren't being critical
It was just an observation.
Okay, I think I see. However, I am still wondering, if there are no hard and fast rules, and you are only accountable to yourself, and so forth, how is this freewheeling "Buddhist" any different from, say, a secular freethinker who also rejects hard and fast rules and is only accountable to himself? Is the only difference that this Buddhist says "I am a Buddhist" whereas the secular person does not?
Its in the motivation. The Buddhist is following that which leads to Awakening in the Buddhist sense.
This could be the one thing that Buddhists pretty much universally agree on: that morality is a matter of cause and effect.
If I commit a murder (or drink a glass of bourbon or whatever) and no-one knows about it; there’s no God who’s making a note in his book; but also I don’t get away with it.
Every harmful action towards another sentient being has a negative effect on my own wellbeing.
Every compassionate action has a positive effect on my own wellbeing.
I think that’s a difference.
In the west it is. But in Thailand and in Thai temples here in the States, the monks are regulated by Thailand's Supreme Sangha -- senior monks -- as well as the government. In other eastern countries, I have no idea,
@zenff , that's good. I suppose another thing that makes a difference, now that I think about it, is that the Buddhist would be more likely to have a worldview that is not purely materialistic, whereas a secular freethinker might be much more materialistic in his outlook. (By materialistic I don't mean grasping after possessions; I mean thinking matter is all that exists, as opposed to, say, mind.)
Indeed.
It seems to me like we're accountable to everyone (at least for all social interactions/actions), but there's no central authority that tells us "you must live this way". I think what Buddhism tries to show us is exactly that despite our freedoms, no one is free of causality. What we choose, and what we do, will be a determining factor of what happens next. Our task, should we choose to accept it (lol), is to learn how to navigate life skillfully so we bring less suffering upon ourselves and others. No one has to do it, but that's why we're Buddhists, right?
Well, I'm more interested in no suffering. Less suffering is still suffering.
The Buddha taught the path to the cessation of suffering, not the lessening of it.
Just sayin'
@Chaz You'll get no argument from me, I'm interested in both.
Every little bit of "less" suffering along the way is a good thing, with "no" suffering being the ideal. Ideals are rarely the realities though, so we have to do the best we can and not get too tightly wound. It's like getting rid of air pollution. Sure we want it all gone, but every little step that gets rid of some percentage of it is toward that ideal.
Just for fun so you understand @Citta:
I like some of the lyrics
What I need right now is some gooooood aaaadviiiice?
Daddy Daddy if you could only see, how good he's treating me.... ...:!:/... 'that we are in looooooove', but I've made up my miiiiiiiind.....
Oh what a beautiful and intricate web..., are you the spider or the fly, or the sticky web Hmmm? - merely a rhetorical question, and not aimed at anyone in particular.
The difference is that fixing samsara will never happen, though sure we can make a lot of progress on pollution. We cannot totally fix any realm with bodies and consciousness.
"Life is like a honey-gathering bee,
After collecting all the honey from myriad flowers,
They age and their labour leaves them with nothing."
But the dharma is unique in that we can totally accomplish the spiritual goal.
Well put @Jeffrey
I am not Buddhist but ,agreed, its an inner hearing I am attending to. I also believe less suffering is more realistic for me. My ears perk up when I hear or read a monk that has devoted their lives to the practice say -I still get angry. Bob
@MeisterBob Some people see the Path as something you're walking along, suffering all the way, until you reach the end and POW, you're suddenly enlightened and free of all suffering. I see it as the Path of gradual lessening of suffering (through gained clarity of reality) that continues on until all ignorance and suffering have been eliminated. It can happen fast or slow, but it's a causal process like anything else.
We can all be walking the Path, and be at different way-points along the way, but there's no telling how far we'll each get. As long as someone's suffering decreases noticeably, it's worth it (IMHO). All progress toward the ideal of full enlightenment is good! I used to be something of a perfectionist, but I'm more pragmatic and practical in my outlook nowadays. This is real-life, with real people trying to remove "dukkha" from their lives as best they can. It's mostly their own effort that counts, but I wish them all great fortune.
One doesn't even have to be a Buddhist, but it pays to understand its teachings about the impermanent, interdependent and selfless nature of our experience. Of everything! Someone trying sincerely to see reality, how things really are, will no doubt benefit.
@AldrisTorvalds My perception of this moment colors the next so a clearer understanding/perception of this moment will give rise to a clearer understanding of the next. Many teachings have helped me in this regard over the years including the Buddha man for sure! For me its progress not perfection and I believe there is progress. _
_
@AldrisTorvalds Yes, accountable to all of humanity and beyond. I didn't really say what I meant I guess, LOL. I more meant that we are not accountable to a single, external being outside of ourselves. I know a lot of people who live to please God, for example, and completely oblivious as to how the way they are living their lives and treating others really does anything but.
There is a lady in our sangha who studies religion to very high levels-many different traditions. She said something this morning about a teacher she has been on retreat with (not Buddhist, I cannot recall the name she used for the group) and said "God did not create us. God became us." I thought that was a really interesting way to put things, I'd never heard that before. I never believed in a God that is separate and out there and in control of my life. But that statement made more sense to me than most things I hear.
Wait, what are we talking about again? lol sorry to stray!
'No suffering' or 'less suffering' are in direct proportion to the degree of our commitment to reducing our ignorance and our attachment.
'No suffering' would imply that we have succeeded in eliminating both completely, which in my VHO is only possible for a Buddha.
'Less suffering' seems to me a more easily attainable and realistic goal.
Kia Ora,
"There Ain't No
PopeHope In Buddhism."Metta Shoshin
@Shoshin Not sure what you mean by that, there seems to be plenty of hope in Buddhism. Hope is what drives us to practice, and then keep practicing.
I guess it depends how you look at hope. I don't think it's a bad thing necessarily, but hope is basically nothing except for wishing/wanting/desiring things to be other than they are rather than accepting them in the moment. I don't practice because I have hope. I practice because I see results. I don't stick with anything that doesn't produce results.
@karasti I'm pretty much the same way; I guess I mean hope in a more general way. For a better future, for myself and everyone. I'm an optimist in many ways (while still trying to be a realist!). I practice because it's helped, but I started practicing because I hoped it would help... and I hope I don't get "stuck" in my progress. I don't rely on hope, but it's there.
"hope is basically nothing except for wishing/wanting/desiring things to be other than they are rather than accepting them in the moment" -- Sounds like dukkha, and I agree, but it's still going to be there until we are living fully present in the moment. I'm nowhere near that yet.
Don't tell TNH that, lol! Bob
"Hope is important because it can make the present moment less difficult to bear. If we believe that tomorrow will be better, we can bear a hardship today."
Thich Nhat Hanh
Kia Ora @AldrisTorvalds,
What I meant was that I see holding onto hope as wishful thinking and not being in the moment...
I do see where you're coming from with "hope of what's to come" but isn't this hope a form of desire ?
I think Buddhist practice goes beyond hope....
Metta Shoshin
@Shosin We all have desire to better ourselves, at least to lessen our suffering. That's not a negative. There are negative types of desire... you can desire the lessening of suffering, but if you desire enlightenment as an attainment that will only make things more difficult. I guess there can also be negative types of hope, but we all hope for something.
Kia Ora,
That's true ... Aspiration/ambition can be seen as a wholesome quality to have, however the term hope (in my mind), just seems to indicate that one is simply leaving things to chance, eg, like what many Abrahamic religious followers seem to do, pray to their god in the 'hope' that things in their life will change for the better-their lives seem to evolve around hope...This is just how I personally see things when observing friends who adhere to the one of the Abrahamic faiths...
Metta Shoshin
@Shoshin Yeah LOL I'm definitely not talking about hope as faith.
One use of the word faith (in Christianity) conveys "everything will work out as it's supposed to because God has a plan for my life, and everything happens for a reason (as part of God's plan)". I'm talking about your everyday hope that's not tied to any higher power... while not denying that if you hope for something, you should put effort toward achieving it! Hope seems to be intrinsic to human well-being; when people lose hope everything turns sour for them. They get depressed and nihilistic, not seeing a point to going on, sometimes turning to suicide.
I've heard Christians intertwine hope and faith, saying "If you don't believe in God, how can you get out of bed in the morning?", as if they're one at the same thing and there's nothing to live for (no hope) without faith. This obviously isn't the case, but I can see the confusion. Their faith is a kind of hope, but hope doesn't have to involve faith.
There is skillful hope and unskillful. I think the words are kushala and akushala.
Trungpa in his book about lojong says in his description of accumulation of merit:
The accumulation of merit is also based on complete trust in the three types of encouragement. These three are not slogans; they are lines of encouragement for the slogans, so to speak. The three lines of encouragement are:
Grant your blessing if it is better for me to be sick.
Grant your blessing if it is better for me to survive.
Grant your blessing if it is better for me to be dead.
This is letting go completely and open heartedly. So there is hope and there is no hope.
I applaud the efforts above to define your terms unto clarity for discussion, which is part and parcel of formal debate. Thank you
The notion that we can accumulate merit is inherently hopeful.
Who is granting the blessing ? Bob
The universe I guess, @MeisterBob. It's the view of taking defeat and giving others victory. This is internalized to all situations. So if you die you die. But you accept whatever happens. Isn't this good?
Ya see what I mean, Bob, about the scientific nature of Buddhism?
Sounds good to me. I'm easily thrown by words sometimes. Bob