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.
sectarianism- me don't like
Friends what are your views on the way to guard against the damage caused by sectarianism? Buddhism has largely a good reputation for tolerance and enlightened thought on ideas of 'truth', 'difference' etc. This has led it to make the unprecedented step of inviting those of other faiths to practice it alongside their own. This is truly the reason I hold it in such high regard.:rolleyes:
However, controversies (best left as unspecified) have occurred within Buddhism up the the present day that have led to anger, violence and an 'us v them' approach which seems to be the opposite of what i have come to understand as the Buddhist approach.How is it that two Buddhist monks can stand on different sides of a debate and hurl stones at each other? It's as bad and bonkers as someone killing in the name of Jesus.
Clearly different groups emphasise different elements of Buddhist thought but how can we prevent these differences become barriers between people? When Islamic sectarian groups within Iraq fight they surely contradict their faith, when Catholics and Protestants blow each other up they oppose their own teachings etc, etc.:nonono:
Is it the case that when these brutal/aggressive/ignorant actions are taken they are the actions of misguided followers who cannot follow their practices' teachings of peace due to their own human imperfections? However, their actions in the name of their sect or religion are then seen wrongly to represent it and Christians become bombers, Muslims become terrorists etc etc. This then leads people to reject 'religion' as a practice of division and hate rather than unity and love and reject spirituality altogether.:eek:
I'll give my view: there are personal and collective spiritualities expressed on our planet as organised religion. These have much to offer us. Once we try to organise them we are working on them in a human way which generally involves heirarchies, alternative interpretations and power struggles. This causes division and hate. For example there is what Jesus said and then what the Church has done and these two things are as different as chalk and cheese.:crazy:
However, controversies (best left as unspecified) have occurred within Buddhism up the the present day that have led to anger, violence and an 'us v them' approach which seems to be the opposite of what i have come to understand as the Buddhist approach.How is it that two Buddhist monks can stand on different sides of a debate and hurl stones at each other? It's as bad and bonkers as someone killing in the name of Jesus.
Clearly different groups emphasise different elements of Buddhist thought but how can we prevent these differences become barriers between people? When Islamic sectarian groups within Iraq fight they surely contradict their faith, when Catholics and Protestants blow each other up they oppose their own teachings etc, etc.:nonono:
Is it the case that when these brutal/aggressive/ignorant actions are taken they are the actions of misguided followers who cannot follow their practices' teachings of peace due to their own human imperfections? However, their actions in the name of their sect or religion are then seen wrongly to represent it and Christians become bombers, Muslims become terrorists etc etc. This then leads people to reject 'religion' as a practice of division and hate rather than unity and love and reject spirituality altogether.:eek:
I'll give my view: there are personal and collective spiritualities expressed on our planet as organised religion. These have much to offer us. Once we try to organise them we are working on them in a human way which generally involves heirarchies, alternative interpretations and power struggles. This causes division and hate. For example there is what Jesus said and then what the Church has done and these two things are as different as chalk and cheese.:crazy:
0
Comments
I have found that some people have strange ideas about sectarianism, believing, for example, that one must practice all traditions in order to not be sectarian. My own view is that we can practise one tradition whilst respecting all others and still be non-sectarian. What does everyone else think?
Both seem to drive a lot of people cwazy.
Seriously, though, I find dogmatism in religion in any form very unattractive and arrogant. Truth (aletheia) is an uncovering, not a ready-made formula.
unfortunately its not going anywhere anytime soon.
I agree with that.
sex and sects? arf arf
I wonder if this problem is why the Theravadens prize the source and simple adherence to it as so important. The more we complicate things the more people can disagree. Similar with the Zennies? 'Quit talking about it and get doing what the man did and said to do'
Having said that sects (and for that matter sex) arise often through good intentions. A bloke reads a suttra and sees meaning. Another asks for a clue and his take on it helps. They then walk down their own little alleyway on the path. However, a different chap needs to explain things slightly different to get it. He forms his own little alley way that works for others. The two begin practising slightly different to help express their understanding. Maybe one wears red bobbles and the other green. Differentiation and the dissolution of oneness.
That's when the 'shoe bobble wars' begin. All shoe bobbles must be my colour, us and them etc. If the Buddha were to see it he would laugh and say neither of you get it!! He would set fire to the shoe bobbles.
NKT and non NKT you are brothers. Respect, love. We are sposed to be good at this!
I know Mahayananists who are convinced that Theravada is truly a retarded hinayana in every sense, where aversion to life is nurtured, and responsibility shunned. I also know Theravadins who are equally convinced that the Mahayana is a “have your cake and eat it too” sham. These Theravadins reduce all measure of practice to the pali canon. They are Sutta-thumpers.
Sectarianism of any kind should not be tolerated by moderators of this forum. It reveals much that it is not addressed.
I disagree! You're so wrong! In fact, I'm going to start my own pro-sectarianism sect as a counterweight to the vast anti-sectarianism conspiracy on this board!
It's just human nature. Where there is an idea, there is somebody opposed to it. My favorite color is red, my father's favorite color is green. Some things just can't be agreed upon. It's really pointless to be against sectarianism as far as I'm concerned. We all have an agenda.
It's all about pride and extreme posturing. What the world needs is people with a sweet reasonableness, ready to listen more to others than to make strident demands straightway into their dialogues. Though people may claim some sort of divine or ideological sanction in their sectarianism, in the end it's all about their pig-headedness or hang-ups or prejudices or hard-heartedness. Such attitudes hamper peace and goodwill and the possibility of true brotherhood and sisterhood.
Human nature seems to cause many problems. It's human nature if someone shouts at me to shout back but hopefully our understanding shows us that creates two problems not one resolution. Because it happens naturally doesn't make it wise. It's 'Virus nature' that makes HIV/Aids cause the death of a person- should we let it carry on then? It's only natural.
Natural selection is sometimes a process of specialisation- we are great at out-thinking predators for example as we have a concept of cause and effect and therefore time. However that leaves us prone to depression about linear time issues such as birth and death. Is it human nature to get depressed about death- is depression natural then? Great. Saying 'sectarianism is human nature' i agree with. Saying 'that's alright then' i don't agree with.:buck:
But what is it exactly that you dislike about sectarianism? It's just the baggage that goes along with a free and open society. It's why political parties exist and it's why there are thousands of different religious sects. Kind of an extreme comparison to relate sectarianism to AIDS. I happen to think sectarianism is amoral. It doesn't necessarily lead to either good or bad results. Plenty of sects co-exist peacefully and never fight one another, while others go to war with frequency.
I'll take a deeply sectarian society any day over a non-sectarian North Korea.
You have an interesting point there KOB
The example of North Korea as a non-sectarian society is just plain silly.
Who said sectarianism is evil?
A sectarian is someone who rigidly follows the doctrines of a sect or other group, turning his back uncharitably on his brother who doesn't see things in the exact same way that he does. That's not evil, it's just uncivil, unkind, and counterproductive.
Sectarianism, I repeat, is first and foremost a sin against charity. Man, love is what unites people. Turn off that spring and ... (perhaps you're right, evil flows.)
Do I contradict myself?
A loving heart sees not the specks in the eyes of others but instead strives to remove the moat in one's own...
Properly speaking, sectarianism is a new development and reflects a new quarrel. Once these sects become established and flourish or flounder for a hundred years or more they become denominations or branches and are no longer properly called sects. A sect reflects, first and foremost, a failure of charity.
:winkc: I couldn't tell if it was a jest or not. That's the problem with messages in text. There's no tone!
America is very sectarian too. But there are no internecine conflicts going on between competing Christians, liberals, or conservatives. Just raucous debate, which is the mark of a functioning democracy.
Explain why. Very few arguments going on over there.
Well said, KoB.
Perhaps it comes down to definitions. I was thinking of it in these sort of terms- 'a narrow-minded adherence to a particular sect or party or denomination' (web def). Its the narrow mindedness that causes trouble. 'I am right and you are wrong and your side represents a threat to my side' rather than 'we have slightly different views brother, isn't that interesting'.
North Korea from my understanding is a totalitarian society, Northern Ireland is not. Both have had violence for different reasons but perhaps a society where difference is embraced as a positive quality rather than used as an excuse for violence would be my kind of place.
I think you value and uphold a healthy debate KOB ('the devil's advocate'). Hopefully you agree that narrowmindedness on both sides of a debate is not healthy.:p
Sorry i failed to get the point you where making there...Let me explain mine i practise my tradition and that alone, i dont feel the need to practise anything else as continuous effort will accomplish results rather then switching what you practise continually in my opinion.
Belonging to a sect doesnt mean sectarianism per se. Sectarianism entails chauvinism which is not amoral, but immoral, if we are going to talk in terms of morality.
If we do not like it, it may be a sign of intolerance and lacking a democratic spirit.
Wanting things to be the same and in agreement is the same as fascism.
Acknowledgement of difference is good.
The feeling, I assure you, is mutual. I failed to get your point —and entirely. At least, right or wrong, I made one. I don't even know what you're referring to concretely, you're so abstract here. We're probably not even communicating here. I was referring to sectarianism, which is divisive and conterproductive, and to be avoided by people of good will everywhere.
Sectarianism in buddhism or sectarianism in worldly activities i was refering to buddhism.