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.
ON BUDDHISM IN THE WEST
Many people feel very happy to hear about dharma coming to the West, the ‘westernization of Buddhism’ as it’s popularly called these days. But this may not always bring to their minds an awareness of the responsibility that comes with it. From the teachers’ perspective, teachers must realize that this is not just about speaking in English or translating certain texts. It is about the continuity of the stream of the essence of Dharma, which must unfold in this country in the most pure and authentic ways. This requires much more dedication and much more understanding of what it means to say that Dharma is coming to the West. Teachers must realize this responsibility. And students must realize that this is not something to simply be happy about. The expression of your happiness and joy—”Oh how nice, how good, Dharma is coming to the West”—is not sufficient at this point. What you must now understand is that you are building something that you must have the courage to hold—again, in the most pure and authentic of ways.
— HE M. Jetsün Khandro Rinpoche, 2009, full text here: http://khandrorinpoche.org/…/jkr-on-buddhism-in-the-west-1…/
@person said:
For starters proselytizing is different from offering or teaching the Dharma. Being a Buddhist involves a dedicated investigation of one's mind and not merely an adoption of a set of beliefs so I don't think it lends itself to conversion by proselytizing.
Actually, I think it does. The DL has said he used to believe that everyone would benefit from following the Dharma, and that he should do his part to spread it, but later he realized that the different religions sprang up from a cultural matrix, and that people are probably better off following their cultural teachings.
Also, how do you think Buddhism spread to Mongolia and other parts of Asia? There was a concerted effort on the part of Tibetan monks to proselytize throughout Inner Asia, and especially Mongolia. It was believed that one gained merit from winning over new followers to the Dharma. Just because Buddhism is said to be non-dogmatic and non-theistic doesn't mean that the Buddha's principles and methods can't be proselytized.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@person said:
For starters proselytizing is different from offering or teaching the Dharma. Being a Buddhist involves a dedicated investigation of one's mind and not merely an adoption of a set of beliefs so I don't think it lends itself to conversion by proselytizing.
Actually, I think it does. The DL has said he used to believe that everyone would benefit from following the Dharma, and that he should do his part to spread it, but later he realized that the different religions sprang up from a cultural matrix, and that people are probably better off following their cultural teachings.
Also, how do you think Buddhism spread to Mongolia and other parts of Asia? There was a concerted effort on the part of Tibetan monks to proselytize throughout Inner Asia, and especially Mongolia. It was believed that one gained merit from winning over new followers to the Dharma. Just because Buddhism is said to be non-dogmatic and non-theistic doesn't mean that the Buddha's principles and methods can't be proselytized.
I think I'll stick to my guns on this one. The type of personal investment involved in inner transformation and growth I'd argue requires a stronger resolve than is needed to adopt a set of beliefs. Proselytizing only aims at persuading someone to join your group, maybe that is enough to get people to engage in the rituals and ceremonies. People in the west aren't going to adopt different non-scientific metaphysics in any meaningful numbers.
Offer the teachings and practices but don't put efforts into conversion.
I agree @person. Offering teachings is one thing, trying to use persuasion to get people to change is deceptive, to me. It is like when Christian mission trips go to places and offer help and then force the people to listen to prayers and sermons in exchange for the help. it is an effort to promise help in exchange for hoping to turn them Christian, and I find that wrong.
I am reading a collection of writings called "Radical Compassion" and this is what I highlighted by CTR last night.
"Perhaps you are fighting to develop love and peace, struggling to achieve them: "We are going to make it, we are going to spend thousands of dollars in order to broadcast the doctrine of love everywhere, we are going to proclaim love." Okay, proclaim it, do it, spend your money, but what about the speed and aggression behind what you are doing? Why do you have to push us into the acceptance of your love? Why is there such speed and force involved? If your love is moving with the same speed and drive as other people's hatred, then something appears to be wrong.
There is so much ambition involved, taking the form of proselytizing. It is not an open situation of communication with things as they are. The ultimate implication of the words "peace on earth" is to remove altogether the ideas of peace and war and to open yourself equally and completely to the positive and negative aspects of the world. It is like seeing the world from an aerial point of view: there is light, there is dark; both are accepted. You are not trying to defend light against dark."
3
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited May 2016
There's another website I visit (general, not denominational or 'religious'), and people there know I am Buddhist.... I often get asked questions, or occasionally "challenged" (yes, I've had the 'You worship a fat guy sat on a cushion!' accusation as well as 'Aren't Buddhists supposed to be bald/vegetarian/pacifist/Tibetan?') and I always preface the responses or information by stating that I don't proselytise, I just respond as I have found, or heard. Then I ask those reading to investigate further, not take my word for it, find other sources and make their own minds up.
When I very rarely get poked in the chest by Christian die-hards, it is they who get moderated, not I, for being pushy, rude, and attempting to 'convert me back ' to Jesus....
Comments
ON BUDDHISM IN THE WEST
Many people feel very happy to hear about dharma coming to the West, the ‘westernization of Buddhism’ as it’s popularly called these days. But this may not always bring to their minds an awareness of the responsibility that comes with it. From the teachers’ perspective, teachers must realize that this is not just about speaking in English or translating certain texts. It is about the continuity of the stream of the essence of Dharma, which must unfold in this country in the most pure and authentic ways. This requires much more dedication and much more understanding of what it means to say that Dharma is coming to the West. Teachers must realize this responsibility. And students must realize that this is not something to simply be happy about. The expression of your happiness and joy—”Oh how nice, how good, Dharma is coming to the West”—is not sufficient at this point. What you must now understand is that you are building something that you must have the courage to hold—again, in the most pure and authentic of ways.
— HE M. Jetsün Khandro Rinpoche, 2009, full text here: http://khandrorinpoche.org/…/jkr-on-buddhism-in-the-west-1…/
Actually, I think it does. The DL has said he used to believe that everyone would benefit from following the Dharma, and that he should do his part to spread it, but later he realized that the different religions sprang up from a cultural matrix, and that people are probably better off following their cultural teachings.
Also, how do you think Buddhism spread to Mongolia and other parts of Asia? There was a concerted effort on the part of Tibetan monks to proselytize throughout Inner Asia, and especially Mongolia. It was believed that one gained merit from winning over new followers to the Dharma. Just because Buddhism is said to be non-dogmatic and non-theistic doesn't mean that the Buddha's principles and methods can't be proselytized.
I think I'll stick to my guns on this one. The type of personal investment involved in inner transformation and growth I'd argue requires a stronger resolve than is needed to adopt a set of beliefs. Proselytizing only aims at persuading someone to join your group, maybe that is enough to get people to engage in the rituals and ceremonies. People in the west aren't going to adopt different non-scientific metaphysics in any meaningful numbers.
Offer the teachings and practices but don't put efforts into conversion.
http://buddhism.about.com/od/Ritual-Liturgy-Practices/fl/Proselytization-and-Buddhism.htm
I agree @person. Offering teachings is one thing, trying to use persuasion to get people to change is deceptive, to me. It is like when Christian mission trips go to places and offer help and then force the people to listen to prayers and sermons in exchange for the help. it is an effort to promise help in exchange for hoping to turn them Christian, and I find that wrong.
I am reading a collection of writings called "Radical Compassion" and this is what I highlighted by CTR last night.
"Perhaps you are fighting to develop love and peace, struggling to achieve them: "We are going to make it, we are going to spend thousands of dollars in order to broadcast the doctrine of love everywhere, we are going to proclaim love." Okay, proclaim it, do it, spend your money, but what about the speed and aggression behind what you are doing? Why do you have to push us into the acceptance of your love? Why is there such speed and force involved? If your love is moving with the same speed and drive as other people's hatred, then something appears to be wrong.
There is so much ambition involved, taking the form of proselytizing. It is not an open situation of communication with things as they are. The ultimate implication of the words "peace on earth" is to remove altogether the ideas of peace and war and to open yourself equally and completely to the positive and negative aspects of the world. It is like seeing the world from an aerial point of view: there is light, there is dark; both are accepted. You are not trying to defend light against dark."
There's another website I visit (general, not denominational or 'religious'), and people there know I am Buddhist.... I often get asked questions, or occasionally "challenged" (yes, I've had the 'You worship a fat guy sat on a cushion!' accusation as well as 'Aren't Buddhists supposed to be bald/vegetarian/pacifist/Tibetan?') and I always preface the responses or information by stating that I don't proselytise, I just respond as I have found, or heard. Then I ask those reading to investigate further, not take my word for it, find other sources and make their own minds up.
When I very rarely get poked in the chest by Christian die-hards, it is they who get moderated, not I, for being pushy, rude, and attempting to 'convert me back ' to Jesus....
@federica save us from the saviors
We would be able to convert these units to meditation cells ...
