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.
What makes someone a Buddhist fundamentalist?
Lostie
Veteran
Ok I have heard tons of stories on Xtian Fundies in this forum.
How about Buddhist Fundies? Is it an oxymoron because if you're a Buddhist, you can't be a fundie?
So what makes a Buddhist a fundie?
How about Buddhist Fundies? Is it an oxymoron because if you're a Buddhist, you can't be a fundie?
So what makes a Buddhist a fundie?
0
Comments
I agree with Tom, I think the extremists have lost touch with their religion.
Two big differences..., no..., enormous differences, IMO.
As was said above, people can act anyway they want in reality: free will.
- when you are offered a bonbon, you ask whether they are sure there is no alcohol in it.
- when people laugh in the monastery, you reprimand them because this is a place of dharma!
- when people are happy, you tell them they should stop it because life is suffering.
- when people have a thought of their own, you dismiss that as “opinions”.
- when the teacher fucks up, you say his wisdom is beyond our comprehension.
- you look down on “worldly” people.
- you think of Buddhists (at least when they’re in your group, at least some of them) as a spiritual elite.
I am working on the extended list, but I have to do some “worldly” things first!
I think it's usually (ex-)Christians using the word "fundamentalist" as a derogatory word because of the negative connotations it has through Christianity.
Thus "fundamentalist" means, in this usage, "overbearing and moralizing."
However, using a more strict meaning of the word "fundamentalism", we could say it simply "relates to the fundamentals."
I would say anyone who prefers Theravada Buddhism over other forms could be considered a "fundamentalist", whether or not he's a fire-breathing moralizer. He is simply focusing on the old teachings of the Buddha, and is perhaps suspicious of the newer interpretations.
Overall, I think it's best to avoid the term "fundamentalism" because of its strong negative connotation to many people and how it can be used to circumvent a sound logical argument.
:coffee:
we had a fundamentalist/troll a short while ago.
He soon goed.
Flangita is a Hindu lesbian
How fascinating, thanks for that. :rolleyes:
#4 when people have a thought of their own, you dismiss it as "mental fabrications"
#5 when the teacher REALLY messes up, you say he/she's from the crazy yogi tradition
ooh,ooh, can I help you with your extended list?
You then helpfully inform them that they are angry and to let go of their anger. That usually calms people down. Faces like this also help :eek2: :eek2: :buck: :screwy: :wow: :wow: :werr:
But then again, isn't a Buddhist conservative an oxymoron too?
I think that some people on this forum might consider me a Fundie Buddhist because I quote the Suttas often, especially when supporting an argument. If that makes me a Fundie, that's fine with me.
But if this is true, then I would also posit that there is such a person as a "Anti-Fundie Buddhist". These are the people who, when they see someone like me quoting the Suttas and don't like what they see, will say things such as "don't mistake the finger for the moon" as a way of disregarding anything scriptual that is quoted against their views.
Metta,
Guy
Metta,
Guy
Apologies.....my rubbish sense of humour hee hee
And for my part I am not critical of quoting scripture as a Fundie act. I am simply not interested in reading a wall of text. Occasionally I will read. And it is more likely to be read if there is connecting text explaining the connection between the scripture and the discussion. SRSC (state relate support conclude).
Also I am simply never going to read an entire sutra outside my tradition that is given a link, though I know such may be fascinating for a different audience.
What would I do without you nipping at my ankles, and keeping me on the straight and narrow, like a herding terrier, dear boy?
Being intolerant and violent is not fundamentalism. It is foolish behaviour that cause great suffering.
Buddhism is a very inclusive religion/philosophy/way of life, that's why I think a Buddhist shouldn't be a conservative.
And hey, the Buddha was a radical guy then. But so was Jesus and other early cult leaders.
Metta,
Guy
I know what you mean. Buddhism is practised in many shades, so we should respect one another's forms of practice. Nothing is absolute.
Also, I read that line as "He soon gooed" :eek:
He WAS gooed.
I'm just saying...
:grr:
You'll be amazed at how much easier this one will be.....:)
Hah! You are in conspiracy with my mother. I knew it.
It seems that the core Buddhist tenets are built against this sort of Christian fundamentalist attitude, that to be a Buddhist fundamentalist necessitates an anti-Christian-like fundamentalism.
However, conventionally as a fellow westerner, as said by above posters--take a peek around here and you will find "fundamentalists" high and low, that is when they think they aren't blinded by a modicum of ego. Or I suppose that many here have found release?
As a general rule the "fundamentalist" is without humility. What Buddhists do you know who believe they are always right?
Bless 'em... hours of frustrating entertainment..... :rolleyes: :shake: :crazy: