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.
I'm a fundamentalist Buddhist! (apparently)
conradcook
Veteran
Or so Mr. Alfred says (http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?p=145664#post145664).
Anyone else?
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
Anyone else?
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
0
Comments
Anyway, what's the intent behind this thread? I don't understand.
That is to say, people who think that considering whether a particular point is true isn't out of line. No intention here to condemn other approaches. I'm just looking to contact other fundies.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
However, as Jason points out on another current thread, when we get bogged down in discussions about some particular aspects of our beliefs or traditions we should not hope to be able to persuade the other party. In essence, most of what we do on these boards is to bounce the unclarified butter of our ideas on others and hope that they'll come back as more clarified ghee:
I might be one. :rolleyes: But that's just me.
I wouldn't call that 'fundamentalist'. 'Fundamentalist'--as least in common usage--generally has a pejorative connotation of sitting in judgment of others, of being 100% sure one is right and refusing to consider other arguments or possibilities.
And, often, it means to be more concerned with the letter of a rule or law or scripture rather than the spirit or deeper Truth behind it. If you're none of these, I shouldn't worry. ^_^
Buddhism needs its traditionalists, people who point out that it can't be "anything goes". There is a core Truth, a Dharma that has to remain no matter how we dress up our practice for modern times.
Even saying we need to change with the times can be fraught with peril (I've always wanted to use that phrase). After all, while the 21st century is different in a lot of ways, people and their natures have not changed. They still have the same disease of Dukkha that Buddha saw, and his prescription is still valid.
But I'm not a traditionalist, because that is what drove me from the Christian religion of my upbringing. I'm biased. Doesn't mean I don't respect those who caution against too much change for the sake of change. They got a point.
I see its value, not for the sake of resisting change, but embracing values.
Someone else had called me a fundamentalist Buddhist, which is why I phrased it that way. I was raised atheist; by my nature, I incline to science and philosophy. My view always had been of a pretty impersonal universe. Not good, not bad, just run by logic and physics. My thoughts about religion were very speculative.
Then it started to become a priority to me to develop brotherly love. The two religions I've always deeply respected were Buddhism and Christianity. Christ teaches that this should be your first priority. And his teaching can open your eyes to that. But, he doesn't really tell you how to do that.
Then I discovered there was something in Buddhism called metta meditation. (Before this I just did just sitting.) Everyone else in my circles already knew about metta meditation, which kind of irritated me. Always the last to know!
I wasn't into it for enlightenment, just as I wasn't into Christianity for salvation. But lately I've come by some strange (and good!) side-effects that I understand Buddhism says happen as a result of cultivating metta.
So, I'm not sure I'm actually truly a Buddhist. In fact, I doubt that there's anyone on the planet who believes the same things I do, whether Buddhist or Christian. But, in terms of the results that I've seen, it looks to me like the Buddha's instruction is correct.
This is why I'm so focused on getting as close to possible to the historical Buddha's teaching. I understand every tradition includes the tinkerings of those who made the transmission happen, and hopefully are qualified.
I used to work in a computer lab, and we'd have people who didn't understand how computers worked, and were determined to do it the long way every time. Because the long way always worked. That's like me with Buddhism: I don't know what's going on, and therefore I want solid instructions.
This is where the "fundamentalist" thing comes in.
Lately I've come to believe that enlightenment is a real possibility. I never really thought of it before, or not for me.
--Actually, that's not exactly true: once in a Dharma talk the speaker said, "One of the things necessary is a 'firm decision' to become enlightened." And I thought: "Oh! That's what that is!"
Which is odd, because I couldn't tell you what that thought was about. It came out of nowhere.
Well, maybe one of these lifetimes.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
It's a strange thing to consider, fundamentalism... I don't think anyone regards the word fundamentalist in a good way? I think it has come to be something of a demeaning label we apply to people that "blindly" follow all the words of a specific teaching. I say "blindly" because that appears to be their behavior when discussing their faith.
Fundamentalism in a religion; I believe, has come to be a circumstance in which a person "blindly" accepts all doctrine of a religion and adheres to all the teachings whole-heartedly without truly understanding the teachings. Typically; and unfortunately, I believe people often become fundamentalist as a result of fear...
Perhaps it would be better if you considered yourself a "devout" Buddhist?
I don't think that describes me, no. A devout Buddhist I think follows the rules scrupulously. A devout Buddhist is a good Buddhist. He is seen as a model for other Buddhists.
I'm not very focused on following the rules. I eat meat sometimes. (I'm working toward becoming vegitarian.) I drink. I would sleep with a virgin (if she was of age) or a married woman, if by reading the situation I was convinced it wouldn't harm her emotionally or socially -- in contrast, a good Buddhist would probably consider these things "misconduct" because they are against the rules.
A devout Buddhist, I think, is first a Buddhist, and therefore follows the rules. I am not like this. I am very interested in creating a change in myself, and coincidentally it seems to me that Buddhism is the way to do it. I am trying to figure out what rules I need to follow, what the instructions are, for making this change happen.
But I would be equally happy following the rules in the "Alcoholics Anonymous" handbook, if I thought they would be effective in making the desired change. It is a coincidence that the completest instructions come from the Buddha. But knowing that they come from the Buddha, that is where my allegiance is.
A devout Buddhist has a religious mindset, in other words. I have a practical one.
I also hold Christ dear to my heart. I feel that devotion to Christ is compatible with devotion to Buddha, since both teach compassion. I feel this, but I have not mentally figured it out yet. Maybe I never will -- theology isn't really my thing. In any case, I think a devout Buddhist would shrug Christ off.
--But, to come back to your point, yes, I am interested in "blindly" following the Buddha's instruction. He knows more about the subject than I do. If I wanted to drive to New York city, would I ask you to write me directions and then only make the turns that I liked?
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
I wouldn't be too sure about that... Christ would be quite a good example of being a bodhisattva and living bodhicitta...
At the end of the day, I think as long as you hold bodhicitta closely to your heart, and become better and better in living bodhicitta you're well on your way to a fortunate state in this life, and the next (be it heaven or rebirth as you may believe).
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
Accumulating merit that can also make this very life easier for you to understand, and possibly teach Dharma down the road... Peeling away the negative layers that samsara has grown around your primordial "Buddha-Nature". The more you destroy samsara's grip on your Buddha-Nature the more fortunate your state is
Conradcook, thank you for sharing this! Your friends must surely find you either to be a beautiful mystery or a mysterious beauty!
May the Force Be Always With Thee!
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
What, however, is the word to describe one who isn't attached to tradition but seeks the truth that is there?
With metta
Gee now if only everyone could be that fundemental we'd all be well into higher grounds by now
I would call that traditional, Theravada, perhaps minimalist..but not fundamentalist the way Conrad is concerned about. At least, going by the post in another thread which led to this one.
^Easily said, but hard to practice. Which one of us haven't looked down on someone who is deemed "ignorant"?
Im not sure exactly what hes worried about friend ?
New schools of Buddhism ? Dogmatic Buddhists Im right your wrong ?
Well on that note you get plenty of the Im right your wrong style of practitoners within Buddhism...;)
Thanks kindly for any tolerance shown in light of my reaction towards getting this out of my system. :O)
Fundamental Buddhism
What exactly is a dogmatic Buddhist, by the way? And do I need to make puns about the word "dog"?
In the radio sketch, the Buddhist character knocks on the door and says "Can I tell you about Buddha?"
The householder snaps back "No! I'm a Christian."
So the Buddhist says "Good for you!" and goes on their way.
(well maybe you had to be there...)