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.
That's the "labels can abused" part, and of course it is not OK. People have been falsely labelled "murderer". Does that mean we should stop using that term? No, it means we need to be clear about what the term is and how it is used.
@Daozen said:
That's the "labels can abused" part, and of course it is not OK. People have been falsely labelled "murderer". Does that mean we should stop using that term? No, it means we need to be clear about what the term is and how it is used.
I'm not questioning the use of such a label, whether used appropriately or inappropriately. That's freedom of speech. What I am against is what I read into your statement that: "strong stance against those organisations (notably Scientology) who masquarade as legitimate spiritual traditions but are yet clearly nothing more than cults led by some very twisted people and who have destroyed many innocent lives. I wish other countries would be so brave to speak out against these abusive organisations".
To me, you made it sound like a desired national policy, which perhaps you did not. But that kind of policy -- if that's what you were saying -- seems very dangerous to me.
But take Scientology, a "religion" I know virtually nothing about. Don't people have a right to participate in that "religion" if they wish to, of their own free will, without being harassed?
I just think there's a very fine line here, and I have seen it crossed in regard to Buddhist temples not being welcome in neighborhoods here in the U.S.
0
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
@Daozen said:
I call a spade a spade, as they say. Labels can be abused, but I don't think that means we should shy from using them when appropriate.
I agree. To be politically correct has the distinct potential for leading to inaccuracies in adjudging truly criminal and dangerous cults when and where they exist.
@silver said:
To be politically correct has the distinct potential for leading to inaccuracies in adjudging truly criminal and dangerous cults when and where they exist.
True enough, but being politically incorrect has a similar potential inaccuracies.
In most of Asia, Buddhism is still a religion-- no less so than Islam in the Middle East or Christianity in Latin America. There are deities/demons. There are gurus/masters that are believed to be somehow special, different from everyone else. There is a belief in afterlife. There are elaborate rituals. If that doesn't make it a religion, I don't know what would.
What we have in the West under the name of "Buddhism" isn't anything that is uniform enough to be generalize-able. Essentially, a number of strong personalities, both Western and Asian, took some Buddhist practices, most notably meditation and started promoting them as pathways to a more fulfilled life. Also some Buddhist "theory" was borrowed, such as emptiness, law of cause and effect etc. At times cultural trappings were also adopted, such as robes, incense and chanting in foreign languages. On top of that a lot of Western psychology has been thrown in.
So what we have here is a very diverse patchwork of mostly small movements that resulted from vigorous picking and choosing from various sources, most importantly some version of Asian Buddhism. Some of these movements are indeed religion-like (with enlightened gurus/masters, rituals, beliefs in immaterial realms etc). Many are more like social clubs of people trying to improve themselves and their lives by following a set of practices and principles.
I personally don't dig religion. If that's what I was after, I would likely go with Christianity-- it is much more in synch with my culture and is quite established here. It truly makes no difference to me whether to believe in virgins giving births or in something like Pure Land or infallibility of a guru. All those beliefs are equally irrational, but the non-Christian variety would marginalize me in the society I'm a part of. Why would I inflict that upon myself? I can see myself doing that when I was younger as a form of rebellion (which is healthy for personality's development), though.
To me Buddhism is four things: the practice of meditation, a less neurotic and self-centered approach to life, ethics and the community that shares the first three. My particular Sangha largely shies away from anything supernatural but has adopted some aspects of Asian culture in its formal practice rituals. I can see how ritual can be helpful to calm the mind, generate focus and possibly build social cohesion but at times I look at it and say to myself: jeez, this is a bit weird, do we really have to do it this way?
I hear the New Ager horde approaching
_"We don't believe in religion but in Love and Compassion." _
In this thread I've read that Buddhism is not a religion, that it is a religion, a cult, bullshit or whatever the practitioner needs but is there one big block of Buddhism we are talking about, because personally I could easily agree with everything being said about Buddhism. Yes, even the bullshit part. There are "some Buddhisms" that might be quite BS. And whatever can be BS depending on how you view/use it. I've sometimes turned Buddhism into a full blossoming one-man-cult. Not very healthy.
I guess it's something that happens between your ears.
My goal is to meditate and become a better being for myself and later for others. Wether people then look at me and say he is religious or they say he is member of a cult, or they might say he is a idiot. It does not really conflict with my practice... Or me getting to where I want to be.
But if you clasify a religion as believing what is written in a book, buddhism might be a religion.
Buddhism is Buddhadharma: the Teaching of the Buddha.
Sometimes Buddhism is in the eye of the beholder: it means different things to different people, according to what elements of Buddhism they choose to integrate into their philosophical makeup.
In that case, it is one person's personal version of Buddhism.
Whether it can be called Buddhism or not, that's another question.
A religion is more of what we, personally, do with it in terms of ourself. If we build churches, invent dogmas by the score, and force people to believe in a creator deity — that is a pseudo-religion. It is not really about me. With authentic religion we have an in depth conversation between the I and the me or as the Buddha put it in the Dhammapada, the self and the lord of the self. Kant called this, rightly, thinking (Denken ist reden mit sich selbst). By this route we pull ourselves up by our own boot straps, eventually, guiding ourselves towards an ennobling view of life. But we can also enter into great depths where mystics, like the Buddha and other great masters, went.
@Toraldris said:
Maybe the more you cling to it, the more it's a religion. Clinginess seems to be all-pervasive where religion is concerned; people just can't let go.
Good point.
Killing the Buddha or leaving the Dharma is for far shore dwellers. Not recommended until we have understanding independent of form.
Comments
So when a community doesn't want a Buddhist temple in it because the majority of that community see Buddhism as a cult, that's okay?
That's the "labels can abused" part, and of course it is not OK. People have been falsely labelled "murderer". Does that mean we should stop using that term? No, it means we need to be clear about what the term is and how it is used.
I'm not questioning the use of such a label, whether used appropriately or inappropriately. That's freedom of speech. What I am against is what I read into your statement that: "strong stance against those organisations (notably Scientology) who masquarade as legitimate spiritual traditions but are yet clearly nothing more than cults led by some very twisted people and who have destroyed many innocent lives. I wish other countries would be so brave to speak out against these abusive organisations".
To me, you made it sound like a desired national policy, which perhaps you did not. But that kind of policy -- if that's what you were saying -- seems very dangerous to me.
But take Scientology, a "religion" I know virtually nothing about. Don't people have a right to participate in that "religion" if they wish to, of their own free will, without being harassed?
I just think there's a very fine line here, and I have seen it crossed in regard to Buddhist temples not being welcome in neighborhoods here in the U.S.
I agree. To be politically correct has the distinct potential for leading to inaccuracies in adjudging truly criminal and dangerous cults when and where they exist.
True enough, but being politically incorrect has a similar potential inaccuracies.
In most of Asia, Buddhism is still a religion-- no less so than Islam in the Middle East or Christianity in Latin America. There are deities/demons. There are gurus/masters that are believed to be somehow special, different from everyone else. There is a belief in afterlife. There are elaborate rituals. If that doesn't make it a religion, I don't know what would.
What we have in the West under the name of "Buddhism" isn't anything that is uniform enough to be generalize-able. Essentially, a number of strong personalities, both Western and Asian, took some Buddhist practices, most notably meditation and started promoting them as pathways to a more fulfilled life. Also some Buddhist "theory" was borrowed, such as emptiness, law of cause and effect etc. At times cultural trappings were also adopted, such as robes, incense and chanting in foreign languages. On top of that a lot of Western psychology has been thrown in.
So what we have here is a very diverse patchwork of mostly small movements that resulted from vigorous picking and choosing from various sources, most importantly some version of Asian Buddhism. Some of these movements are indeed religion-like (with enlightened gurus/masters, rituals, beliefs in immaterial realms etc). Many are more like social clubs of people trying to improve themselves and their lives by following a set of practices and principles.
I personally don't dig religion. If that's what I was after, I would likely go with Christianity-- it is much more in synch with my culture and is quite established here. It truly makes no difference to me whether to believe in virgins giving births or in something like Pure Land or infallibility of a guru. All those beliefs are equally irrational, but the non-Christian variety would marginalize me in the society I'm a part of. Why would I inflict that upon myself? I can see myself doing that when I was younger as a form of rebellion (which is healthy for personality's development), though.
To me Buddhism is four things: the practice of meditation, a less neurotic and self-centered approach to life, ethics and the community that shares the first three. My particular Sangha largely shies away from anything supernatural but has adopted some aspects of Asian culture in its formal practice rituals. I can see how ritual can be helpful to calm the mind, generate focus and possibly build social cohesion but at times I look at it and say to myself: jeez, this is a bit weird, do we really have to do it this way?
I hear the New Ager horde approaching
_"We don't believe in religion but in Love and Compassion." _
In this thread I've read that Buddhism is not a religion, that it is a religion, a cult, bullshit or whatever the practitioner needs but is there one big block of Buddhism we are talking about, because personally I could easily agree with everything being said about Buddhism. Yes, even the bullshit part. There are "some Buddhisms" that might be quite BS. And whatever can be BS depending on how you view/use it. I've sometimes turned Buddhism into a full blossoming one-man-cult. Not very healthy.
I guess it's something that happens between your ears.
My goal is to meditate and become a better being for myself and later for others. Wether people then look at me and say he is religious or they say he is member of a cult, or they might say he is a idiot. It does not really conflict with my practice... Or me getting to where I want to be.
But if you clasify a religion as believing what is written in a book, buddhism might be a religion.
Buddhism is Buddhadharma: the Teaching of the Buddha.
Sometimes Buddhism is in the eye of the beholder: it means different things to different people, according to what elements of Buddhism they choose to integrate into their philosophical makeup.
In that case, it is one person's personal version of Buddhism.
Whether it can be called Buddhism or not, that's another question.
A religion is more of what we, personally, do with it in terms of ourself. If we build churches, invent dogmas by the score, and force people to believe in a creator deity — that is a pseudo-religion. It is not really about me. With authentic religion we have an in depth conversation between the I and the me or as the Buddha put it in the Dhammapada, the self and the lord of the self. Kant called this, rightly, thinking (Denken ist reden mit sich selbst). By this route we pull ourselves up by our own boot straps, eventually, guiding ourselves towards an ennobling view of life. But we can also enter into great depths where mystics, like the Buddha and other great masters, went.
Buddhism is all things to all men ( and women of course ). Jolly good!
Maybe the more you cling to it, the more it's a religion. Clinginess seems to be all-pervasive where religion is concerned; people just can't let go.
Good point.
Killing the Buddha or leaving the Dharma is for far shore dwellers. Not recommended until we have understanding independent of form.