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.
Being an "out" Buddhist
For a long time I was a tentative Buddhist who did no practice other than mindfulness from time to time, and that was untaught - just a natural pleasure in attending to "now".
I have become more formally engaged in taught practice, meditate daily, mostly stick to the precepts, etc.
As a US native, I grew up where sharing one's religion, proselytizing it, is a normal way to share that blessing. (And, yes, I know it can be greatly annoying!)
Now I am openly a Buddhist practitioner. I share it whenever it seems appropriate - chatting, facebook, etc. I meditate in public whenever I am waiting for something, in a modest manner, but with my eyes closed, simply because it is a positive experience. My spouse thinks I may be annoying people, but I have only had neutral or positive feedback, so it is hard to tell.
Your considerations about this topic in general would be appreciated.
I have become more formally engaged in taught practice, meditate daily, mostly stick to the precepts, etc.
As a US native, I grew up where sharing one's religion, proselytizing it, is a normal way to share that blessing. (And, yes, I know it can be greatly annoying!)
Now I am openly a Buddhist practitioner. I share it whenever it seems appropriate - chatting, facebook, etc. I meditate in public whenever I am waiting for something, in a modest manner, but with my eyes closed, simply because it is a positive experience. My spouse thinks I may be annoying people, but I have only had neutral or positive feedback, so it is hard to tell.
Your considerations about this topic in general would be appreciated.
0
Comments
I had a cable television technician visit my house to fix a recurring internet outage problem. He noticed my desktop wallpaper (a picture of a beautiful statue of Buddha) and turned to me and in a typical southern drawl said, "'Is that Buddha?"
I said, "Yes. That is a statue of Buddha in Japan."
He then asked me if I was a Buddhist, and because at the time I really considered myself more of an atheist and a scholar of Buddhism, rather than an actual practitioner, I said, "No." (I also felt uncomfortable talking religion with a cable tech in a very, very conservative "Red" state.)
He then derped from his entire Southern Baptist being this jewel, "It's sad that all those people are gonna burn in Hell for worshiping a rock!"
I said nothing, as I wanted my internet fixed.
But his ignorance did upset me. I mean, what if I had accused him of worshiping a statue of a torture victim nailed to cross?
Anyway, it was the final impetus I needed to admit to myself that I am indeed a Buddhist.
You can't stereotype like that and say all Americans are stupid.
Most Americans are stupid, would probably be more accurate.
(I'm joking, no offence intended; that's not accurate either).:D
How do I turn off my sarcasm mode and respond to your comment in a sensible manner?
Maybe we should clarify what qualifies as stupid. Even as an American I think you might be on to something.
I have to call myself an American, there's nothing like estadounidense. That sums this entire post up. Americans are stupid, do what you will and ignore fools.
I think it's more accurate to say a large *majority* of Americans are stupid.
I imagine some people who notice might think you were simply treating a headache in your own way. But I would call them nice, not stupid!
Now if anyone saw you meditating in public and thought you were trying to make a statement about anything and was thereby annoyed by your "statement," I might question the depth of that person's reflective powers or his love for fellow human beings.
As for the "Americans are stupid" line, I'd just rather let that go, in the aftermath of an election in which sloganism by demagogues of the winning party ran amuck unchecked by unquestionably smart compatriots of mine.
It is certainly the case here in the UK. Even with all the hoo-haa about multi-ethnicity & lack of religious fervour, the UK is still considered to be mainly Christian. I had someone comment on a train once that they did not like to disturb me because they thought I was praying.
I would doubt people would be annoyed or offended by you sitting or standing quietly with your eyes closed.
No, most people are stupid. That's everywhere, throughout history, and that includes you and me.
You have my sympathies!
(I'm joking, I'm joking - point to me where being an American is?
But getting back to the original post, I haven't told anyone I'm a Buddhist, because I'm not sure if I am or not, and I'm not sure if it matters, but I can relate to your post because I'm a member of AA.
When I first stopped drinking and began to get my life back together with the help of AA, I felt obliged to tell everyone that I was a recovered alkie, whether it was relevant or not.
I think my reasons for doing so was that I was obsessed with AA, drinking, and alcoholism; and it's all that was on my mind. As time wore on, I calmed down, and I rarely tell anyone I'm in AA - on a face-to-face level - because I understand some people's perceptions of what an alkie is and the reality is two different concepts.
I also regret telling some people, like my neighbours, that I'm an alkie.
Based on my experience of AA and telling people, I would think it safest to wait to tell people about your new religion until you're more settled and comfortable with it. You never know, a year from now you may regret telling someone you're a Buddhist? Maybe?
For all you know, if you say told your boss at work that you're a Buddhist, he may assume you sit around gazing at your navel for much of your spare time? He may also assume you to be weird. Will that affect any promotions at work?
Stupid- 1. lacking in common sense, perception, or normal intelligence
A generalization of this nature is very weak because if one were to say "all of X people are stupid" it would only take one person belonging to group X (who is not stupid) to prove the generalization is wrong.
The more exceptions there are to a generalization the weaker it becomes.
We can make a generalization stronger by using words like most or some or quantifying the number using statistics.
saying "Most people in group X are stupid" is still a weak generalization because most must account for at least 51% of the group in order to be an accurate description.
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% white;" border="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> IQ
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> Description
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> % of Population
</td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> 130+
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> Very superior
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> 2.2%
</td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> 120-129
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> Superior
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> 6.7%
</td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> 110-119
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> High average
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> 16.1%
</td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> 90-109
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> Average
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> 50%
</td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> 80-89
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> Low average
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> 16.1%
</td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> 70-79
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> Borderline
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> 6.7%
</td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> Below 70
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> Extremely low
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> 2.2%
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
According to these statistics it is more accurate to say that approximately 16.1% of the population is slightly stupid and 8.9% of the population is stupid.
What I think we are really looking at though is not a problem of stupidity because even stupid people can be open minded, decent, and kind. What we are looking at is a problem with ignorance.
Ignorance - The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.
The Buddha thought that this was an important topic and believed that most people in the world were ignorant to a greater or lesser degree.
The definition
"And what is ignorance, what is the origin of ignorance, what is the cessation of ignorance, what is the way leading to the cessation of ignorance? Not knowing about dukkha, not knowing about the origin of dukkha, not knowing about the cessation of dukkha, not knowing about the way leading to the cessation of dukkha — this is called ignorance. With the arising of the taints there is the arising of ignorance; with the cessation of the taints there is the cessation of ignorance. The way leading to the cessation of ignorance is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration."
...
"And what are the taints, what is the origin of the taints, what is the cessation of the taints, what is the way leading to the cessation of the taints? There are three taints: the taint of sensual desire, the taint of being and the taint of ignorance. With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of the taints. With the cessation of ignorance there is the cessation of the taints. The way leading to the cessation of the taints is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration."
— MN 9 (Ñanamoli/Bodhi, trans.)
Because ignorance is the root cause of dukkha...
"From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications... comes consciousness. From consciousness... name-&-form. From name-&-form... the six sense media. From the six sense media... contact. From contact... feeling. From feeling...craving. From craving... clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance... becoming. From becoming... birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
...when it ceases, so too must dukkha cease
"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."
— SN 12.2
So all of us except for those of us who have attained the goal, (unbinding, enlightenment) are still ignorant to some degree. Those of us who are aware of the four noble truths and live our lives by the noble eightfold path may be less ignorant than those who are unaware of the four noble truths but as long as we still possess craving and attachment we still possess some ignorance.
In summary, we do not have a epidemic of stupidity in this world, our epidemic is one of ignorance, attachment, craving, and suffering.
Namaste
Definitions from http://www.thefreedictionary.com
Statistics from http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm
Dharma quotes from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca2/avijja.html
There are many ways to do this and many humanistic psychologists do this sort of thing all of the time. If you are concerned that a person may be annoyed by you sharing your "religious" view on a matter you can label it as a psychological view or a personal opinion that stands apart from religion. There is so much truth that can be shared without requiring a label. I have a friend that is a psychologist, he is also a meditator and a practitioner of Buddhism. When he talks to Christians he uses references to Jesus' teachings, when he talks to Buddhist's he uses references to Buddha's teaching, when he talks to people who are atheist or non religious he uses references to psychology. The fact is that he is still conveying the same message to all three groups of people. He is just doing so in a way that will not make them automatically tune him out.
I encourage Buddhists who want to share the wisdom of the four noble truths with others to learn about other religious teachings and psychology so that they share in a way that does not cause an automatic defensive response in the people they wish to share this message with.
Of course if this represents too significant of a time investment I encourage you to use your best judgment and learn to read peoples body language well so that you know when to continue sharing and when to stop. If while you are sharing the person is making eye contact, mimicking your body language, nodding, and is engaged in the conversation then they are either receiving it well or they like you very much. If they do not make eye contact, shake their head, take up a defensive posture, and seem disengaged then you are probably annoying them.
Buuuut... I remember at the time I didn't care. Meditation is like the best thing you can do in this life. I would say just don't overwhelm people and keep practicing, and don't let Buddha Dharma become something you just think and talk about. The more you keep practicing everyday, I would say the more likely you have new stuff to talk about. Naaa mean?
I usually call it "mindfulness" which has become a word in common use, and it seems appropriately with respect to Buddhism. I introduced a fundamentalist Christian friend to the concept of mindfulness by having a long conversation about how so much of our mental work is in the fantasy realms of the past and future with great sacrifice to experiencing the moment of NOW. He got it, no problem. Step two was introducing him to yoga where I practice and it is done with attention to mindful meditation in a non-"religious" manner. He got it, no problem.
A further comment on being "out." I am a supporter of the concept of being "out" in the LGBT world. The more outness that goes on, the more learning and acceptance available to everyone. Mindfulness/Buddhism has so much to offer the world that it is selfish to be shy about it.
You really gotta watch those stealth Buddhists. Very insidious. They're probably out there reading our thoughts and trying to recruit our children
Cheers, WK
PS: Mountain, nice flag.
My dog sitters who have a key to my place walked my dog today. I know that they are the 'you're going to hell' type of Christians. I had some books on Buddhism on the table and I considered putting them elsewhere before I left this morning. But intentionally didn't. I decided it's my place, and I can read what I want.
If they bring it up I'll just tell them I'm convinced that the Buddhist path leads to the end of suffering. But I'm not going to argue about it. I was a Christian for a long time, and I think many good things can be said about Christianity. And they are entitled to believe what they want.
One of the things I'm learning through Buddhism is that if I simply will not argue even when I think the other person is dead wrong it saves a lot of suffering.