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.
Buddhist Fundamentalism?
chrispche
Southend on Sea, Essex, UK Explorer
I wonder is there such a thing as Buddhist Fundamentalism? Why do I ask, cos I can't believe some of the stuff people believe. I'm reading a book at the moment about the brain and how it works. It's about the last 20 years of scientific discovery about how the brain and consciousness works. Guess what, it keep referring to Siddhartha otherwise known as the Buddha. Science is now proving his use of mindfulness and meditation really do affect the brain on a physical level. 2500 years ago this guy was looking into how the brain works. 2500 years on, we are starting to see her was on to something.
The world needs to wise up and be more mindful, before we're all fucked and it's too late. Stop fighting over who is right about that man in the sky that no one has ever seen. Start being mindful now in the present moment and realise that the action you take now effects your future. Stop worrying about the past there is nothing you can do about it.
Lets all pull together and try to awaken and not be so deluded.
By the way the book is, for those who are interested.
Buddha's Brain by Rick Hanson PH D.
The world needs to wise up and be more mindful, before we're all fucked and it's too late. Stop fighting over who is right about that man in the sky that no one has ever seen. Start being mindful now in the present moment and realise that the action you take now effects your future. Stop worrying about the past there is nothing you can do about it.
Lets all pull together and try to awaken and not be so deluded.
By the way the book is, for those who are interested.
Buddha's Brain by Rick Hanson PH D.
0
Comments
BTW......"we are what we think, all that arises is from our thoughts", is an incorrect and erroneous translation. It's simplified and as such open to argument.....
The translation in my signature is far more accurate.....
They certainly do !
.
I don't think fundamentalism means much.
It could mean being true to a valuable principle. And uholding wisdom teachings. In that sense both Tiger Woods behaviour or Trungpa Rinpoche's could both be attacked but as long as they are upholding the wisdom of the teaching of buddhism then they could be fundamentalists. (though I think Tiger Woods is a great guy and a great golfer I never read his views on buddhism, though of course I wish him well)...
Of course if you meant fundamentalism as an exclusionary term Trungpa and Tiger could be 'excluded' for sinfull behaviour.
I like the first meaning and the second I think its not present in buddhism though of course if you break the rules of a group or sangha you might have to make some kind of reparation. And karmic consquences even the man made (or responsive) variety as well...
The disharmony here is that the Buddha, and Buddhist monks, express a reality we are blind to in conventional terms & that can only really convey part of this reality. Imagine someone trying to explain to you what an orange tastes like, when you have never eaten one. This will be very difficult, and they will likely have to tell you more about what it is not than what it is; such as how Nirvana is explained. Then being wise guys, they will tell you to go out and pick your own damn orange and taste it.
Namaste
For the sake of clarity, it would be helpful if you could give us your definition of "fundamentalist Buddhism".
With Metta,
Guy
If e-sangha was still alive, I would have recommended to go and have a look at Buddhist fundamentalism in action, alas, the forum is now defunct.
Curiously, there are few idea systems spared by fundamentalism. Even idea systems that are reactionary by definition -such as atheism- have managed to spawn fundamentalist groups, such as the Richard Dawkins movement, which one might call fundamaterialism.
Cheers, Thomas
Someone like me, who just does not have time for other monotheistic religions and there faith doctrine. I feel anger in myself that we are all so deluded and the world fights war in the name of religion and so oo, both past and future.
I believe that Buddhism is the only way. I don't say that on faith or some words in a book. But from the jhana states I have achieved in the past.
So I pity the brainwashed masses.
Its strange to hear such venom dripping from the fingers of someone who has viewed life clearly! It might be time to work on dissolving some of that judgement, friend. It won't get you far.
With love,
Matt
Yeah maybe it was the Christians that knocked on my door and started, preaching.
Dude, that guy is as biased as one can get. His website is one big preaching hall for Buddhism. You should read something by non-Buddhist scientists about how the brain functions - and start out with the basics so you won't get mislead later by fantastic claims made by people with a clear, biased goal.
The possible cognitive changing effects of meditation is largely accepted within psychology, though. I will not call this man a hoax - I don't think he is. But skepticism must be applied when an author is this happy about his own religion.
It's not difficult to find "amazing", "scientifically proven" claims within a multitude of religions - often they're made intentionally to support the religion.
What a grand contradiction to type out. Perhaps you should print and frame that sentence. What causes anger other than delusion?
Cheers, Thomas
Cheers, Thomas
Well I'm not claiming to be perfect and I know I'm deluded. The anger is at myself as much as it is with other people.
Guess what, I find Metta Bhavana the hardest meditation to do. It's simply to emotional, if that has something to do with me being bi-polar I don't know. What works for me is mindfulness of breathing. It's almost like a comfort blanket, this in it's self is another delusion.
I can only try my friend. That's it.
How amazing to learnt of this acknowledement!! But sadly, really, it did not have done much work on you yet. Nevermind, it did not enlighten to many as yet, just let go and simultaneously surface your loving kindness until full supremeness take precedent
Fundamentalist has become a term to abuse religions one doesn't like, which is why I don't use it. I'd suggest replacing it with dogmatist, literalist, triumphalist, or some other term that carries a definite meaning.
Yes, the term fundamentalist has a pejorative connotation and therefore I would reserve it for besettingly misguided cases, such as the Taliban.
Cheers, Thomas
If that is the case, then it should not be used to refer to the strain of Christianity you mentioned either.
With regards to the original post and 'shaping up before it's too late', too late for what? Survival? We're all going to die. Before we ruin the world? The world will be consumed by the sun in the end; it is transitory.
In the end, I don't think I have many (any) answers. Answers imply words and words imply thought and thought doesn't get us anywhere. Let's sit instead.
With love -
The term fundamentalism was originally coined to describe a narrowly defined set of beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of that time. Until 1950, there was no entry for fundamentalism in the Oxford English Dictionary<sup id="cite_ref-GIDDINSa_4-0" class="reference">[5]</sup>; the derivative fundamentalist was added only in its second 1989 edition.<sup id="cite_ref-ORIGINOED_5-0" class="reference">[6]</sup>
The term has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations.<sup id="cite_ref-ORIGINOED_5-1" class="reference">[6]</sup>
Fundamentalism is commonly used as a pejorative term, particularly when combined with other epithets (as in the phrase "Muslim fundamentalists" and "right-wing/left-wing fundamentalists").<sup id="cite_ref-6" class="reference">[7]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference">[8]</sup> Richard Dawkins has used the term to characterize religious advocates as clinging to a stubborn, entrenched position that defies reasoned argument or contradictory evidence.<sup id="cite_ref-8" class="reference">[9]</sup> Others in turn, such as Christian theologian Alister McGrath, have used the term fundamentalism to characterize atheism as dogmatic.<sup id="cite_ref-McGrath_2007_9-0" class="reference">[10]</sup>
rest of the article is at....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
To me dogmatic Buddhism is the attitude that a particular tradition or approach is the only authentic or correct one. In my experience it often results from a lack of exposure to other traditions and approaches.
P
What Richard Dawkins and his fellow combatants espouse is more appropriately called fundamaterialism.
:winkc: Cheers, Thomas
No, it's just science.:p
P