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.
whats wrong with being a fundamentalist? It has taken on a pretty negative term the last 20 years I know, but when speaking about Buddhism, I see nothing wrong with it.
...
The type of fundamentalism we view as negative, is not seen there..
...
I don't think there's anything wrong with being a religious fundamentalist, nor do I think there's anything wrong with critiquing religious fundamentalism.
But, you seem to be saying that Buddhist fundamentalism is fine, but all other religious fundamentalism is not. Maybe there's a need to rethink or restate.
whats wrong with being a fundamentalist? It has taken on a pretty negative term the last 20 years I know, but when speaking about Buddhism, I see nothing wrong with it.
...
The type of fundamentalism we view as negative, is not seen there..
...
I don't think there's anything wrong with being a religious fundamentalist, nor do I think there's anything wrong with critiquing religious fundamentalism.
But, you seem to be saying that Buddhist fundamentalism is fine, but all other religious fundamentalism is not. Maybe there's a need to rethink or restate.
again depends on what you mean by fundamentalism. If someone is a fundamentalist because he believes in, for example, just the teachings of Jesus in the new testament and not the old testament, then whats wrong with that? I think what everyone's issue with fundamentalism stems from is the concept of " we are right, you are wrong, convert or die, we'll kill you in the name of our god" kind of fundamentalism as seen throughout history in every religion.
Fundamentalism: 1. (relating to Christian/bible beliefs)
2. : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles.
also: type of militantly conservative religious movement characterized by the advocacy of strict conformity to sacred texts. Once used exclusively to refer to American Protestants who insisted on the inerrancy of the Bible, the term fundamentalism was applied more broadly beginning in the late 20th century to a wider variety of religious movements. Indeed, in the broad sense of the term, many of the major religions of the world may be said to have fundamentalist movements.
******* There's nothing 'wrong' with being a fundamentalist per se. That's all well and good as far as free choice to be as literal /religious as one needs or wants to be. But it becomes a 'negative' attitude when one uses their own fundamental beliefs to show bias and to degrade, dismiss or disparage others' level of adherence to the same faith, or any other faiths or belief systems.
MaryAnne, I don't think there is anything wrong with showing bias to your own beliefs, lest everyone be guilty. Stephen Bachelor etc. dismiss others beliefs in their works. It is the nature of the beast to be partial to your own beliefs. Is there something I am missing?
As our child thoughts run riot, we adulterate our capacity for metta and compassion and incessantly indulge in an unskilful orgy.
As we know a variety of sexual orientations are here. The theoretically pure, the virginal, gender x, the sex addicts and those motivated by love and good will.
From where we are can we be kinder, more tolerant of our hang ups, more accepting of limited or unusual experiences of dukkha?
One can 'favor' their own beliefs over others all they like, but once one starts shaming, mocking, attacking, or disparaging others for their's... well, it's called being judgmental, biased, prejudiced, and certainly not compassionate or understanding. That behavior doesn't fit in with right action nor right speech, wouldn't you agree? Or is it all OK because it's coming from a Buddhist monk?
How would you feel if a Christian priest or preacher came into this forum and said YOU were going to burn in hell, etc etc because you didn't believe as HE did? You'd be OK with that as well? Or would you say to yourself, Wow, that's not 'right' to be so negative towards others; "especially as a man of God" - and maybe even critique or try to discuss his bad attitude and behavior with him?
@MaryAnne, but his belief is that you do go to hell. Same thing with Christians. I of course disagree with: shaming, mocking, attacking, and disparaging. The distinction must be made between sharing what you believe to be true and attacking.
But there is some wiggle room between disparaging and matter of fact saying that someone might go to hell. I will say that there is a time and place for divulging your own belief that others are going to hell. Buddha said that there are many criterion for right speach. Truthfulness is only one aspect. So while I may believe it is true that x person will go to hell I might not speak it if it were not in the right time and place.
I find that telling people they will go to hell is tough to do right. It's abrasive. But strictly speaking you can't expect Christians to tiptoe around. Yes, darn right, they believe non-believers are going to hell. But as I said there is not much to be gained by telling others they will go to hell if you don't have the right relationship with them.
But yes I think bad karma leads to a bad place. You'll notice I haven't told anyone on the forum that they are going to hell. But my belief is that negative karma can lead to rebirth in a hell realm. The difference is that I don't attack anyone or even bring it up because almost always it is at the wrong time or is abrasive or simply unhelpful.
"Avoid all sexual abuse". Well if the "abuse" spares a few lives, that still doesn't make it worth arguing for does it? And if someone cares enough about you, they'll say hurtful things to put your mind in check, even if it means risking their reputation. Something to think about.
Samahita reminds me of my (late) father. We had energetic discussions when I was young. He used to say that he didn’t give his opinions but what he said was the truth. He didn’t have opinions he just expressed the truth as it was handed down to us in the Bible. My father was a hopeless case in my opinion and I was a hopeless case in his opinion. When we both realized this we stopped arguing.
Samahita claims to express the Dhamma. There’s no arguing against it. It is (in his mind) the truth. He’s a hopeless case.
Agreed! A hopeless case! But at the same time, this could easily be a good thing as a stream-winner has unwavering faith in the Buddha's dharma and no longer questions one bit of it. All of it is true! Skeptical doubting (vicikiccha) is considered a fetter of the mind to be abandoned. Because someone has abandoned it, this could very well be a good thing because the more fetters you cut, the closer to enlightenment you are.
Unwavering faith. It sounds so desperate. Of course there is room for doubt. For some people it is just too scary to go there. And I can respect that.
I don’t argue with fundamentalists; there’s too much at stake for them. That’s why it’s impossible to get through to them.
And no I’m not frustrated about my Christian upbringing. I just learned what “unwavering faith” really is; I think it is existential fear.
I don’t argue with fundamentalists; there’s too much at stake for them. That’s why it’s impossible to get through to them.
"Fundamentalist Buddhist" is an oxymoron (ie contradiction in terms). One of the tenets of Buddhism is openness. So if you ain't open, you ain't a Buddhist.
What life is destroyed is life together. If no agreements are made then none can be broken. When we stay in a culture or a nation we should know its basic agreements and follow them or leave. That is also true of personal arrangements. Breaching trust is destructive. It lessens the bond and degrades the relationship. Maintaining vows is vital. How can we rise above ourselves and perfect ourselves for the benefit of other if we cannot even keep our vows. A Buddhist is not expected to ask for forgiveness after sinning. A Buddhist stays pure and keeps his agreements with himself and others for the benefit of himself and the other and for the future. In a clean relationship I don't think either side can tolerate lies or secrets so this is destructive of the relationship and therefore the lives together. Hold yourself above such things and remain pure. Nothing else can be right conduct. Just don't fall. Even anger is a sin against relations. Ask for forgiveness and vow to do better and do better. Don't fall. It is so simple. Just don't fall and you won't have to struggle back up. Quickly now, decide to remain pure with no reservation and don't change your mind. If you are already fallen then stand up and don't fall again. There can be no question. Vows are vows because they cannot be broken. mtgby
Unwavering faith. It sounds so desperate. Of course there is room for doubt. For some people it is just too scary to go there. And I can respect that.
I don’t argue with fundamentalists; there’s too much at stake for them. That’s why it’s impossible to get through to them.
And no I’m not frustrated about my Christian upbringing. I just learned what “unwavering faith” really is; I think it is existential fear.
Unwavering faith of the "fetter cutting" kind is much different than that. Best description here I think.
"Personal experience of the truth of the Buddhas teaching so much so that no more doubts about it remain."
This is the opposite of fear actually. The stronger this kind of faith is, the more personal experience of the truth of the teaching there is in ones life. The fetter cutting faith could be called "actual wisdom".
I don’t argue with fundamentalists; there’s too much at stake for them. That’s why it’s impossible to get through to them.
"Fundamentalist Buddhist" is an oxymoron (ie contradiction in terms). One of the tenets of Buddhism is openness. So if you ain't open, you ain't a Buddhist.
Should a person be open to the idea that adultery is not really all that bad? I don't know, that seems unwise. It seems more wise to be completely closed to the idea that "adultery might not be all that bad." Or, completely closed to the idea that "Well, it's ok to break the precepts once in a while"
I think what you're missing, Jeffrey...at least to me...is that if one is going to thump their beliefs, they ought to expect push-back.
But at the same time, it's a bit strange to get push back against traditional, widely accepted and widely agreed upon, Buddhist beliefs, on a Buddhist forum. It's almost like saying "I really don't care what the wise men say, I'm gonna do my own thing".
This is pretty serious for a forum like this. Couldn't we all just be friends and agree to disagree sometimes. However right action is right action and only delusion clouds the domain. Surely no one here would agree to abide decisions originating in delusion. Please, Dharma has an 8,000 +- year tradition and is the one thing we can mostly agree on. Do right action. mtgby
I think what you're missing, Jeffrey...at least to me...is that if one is going to thump their beliefs, they ought to expect push-back.
But at the same time, it's a bit strange to get push back against traditional, widely accepted and widely agreed upon, Buddhist beliefs, on a Buddhist forum. It's almost like saying "I really don't care what the wise men say, I'm gonna do my own thing".
Who decides who is wise?
Just because they are wearing a saffron robe?
And only those wearing a saffron robe can be wise?
Yes, I'm going to do my own thing because I'm not a puppet and I can think for myself. Some wise people can't. They just mouth the same old words over and over.
This is pretty serious for a forum like this. Couldn't we all just be friends and agree to disagree sometimes. However right action is right action and only delusion clouds the domain. Surely no one here would agree to abide decisions originating in delusion. Please, Dharma has an 8,000 +- year tradition and is the one thing we can mostly agree on. Do right action. mtgby
No, it's not reasonable to think that all on this forum are going to be friends. There are people on this forum I intensely dislike. I don't, however, wish them ill.
But, we do agree to disagree. That's what these chats are all about.
@MaryAnne, but his belief is that you do go to hell. Same thing with Christians. I of course disagree with: shaming, mocking, attacking, and disparaging. The distinction must be made between sharing what you believe to be true and attacking.
But there is some wiggle room between disparaging and matter of fact saying that someone might go to hell. I will say that there is a time and place for divulging your own belief that others are going to hell. Buddha said that there are many criterion for right speach. Truthfulness is only one aspect. So while I may believe it is true that x person will go to hell I might not speak it if it were not in the right time and place.
I find that telling people they will go to hell is tough to do right. It's abrasive. But strictly speaking you can't expect Christians to tiptoe around. Yes, darn right, they believe non-believers are going to hell. But as I said there is not much to be gained by telling others they will go to hell if you don't have the right relationship with them.
But yes I think bad karma leads to a bad place. You'll notice I haven't told anyone on the forum that they are going to hell. But my belief is that negative karma can lead to rebirth in a hell realm. The difference is that I don't attack anyone or even bring it up because almost always it is at the wrong time or is abrasive or simply unhelpful.
Jeffrey I mostly agree with you but I think we create our own hell here as well as our own rebirth after birth...so things are complex and as you say there is rarely a good time for condemning our friends. The Buddha said "When a person was looked for none was found" Prajnaparamita. So what would it be that would go to hell anyway. Yes it is good to be non judgmental.
You mean like the words of The Buddha? The wisest man to ever walk the face of the earth? Yes, I would say that is typical and to be expected on a Buddhist forum!
You mean like the words of The Buddha? The wisest man to ever walk the face of the earth? Yes, I would say that is typical and to be expected on a Buddhist forum!
No, he doesn't decide anything anymore. He's dead. And he could not decide in advance who would be wise in 2500 years.
And there you go. Buddha was one of the wisest men in history.
You mean like the words of The Buddha? The wisest man to ever walk the face of the earth? Yes, I would say that is typical and to be expected on a Buddhist forum!
And he could not decide in advance who would be wise in 2500 years.
Yes, he can! He is that wise! What is wise and unwise is written down and it hasn't changed just because some time has passed. The truth of suffering does not change simply with the passage of time. What was true then is still true now and will forever be true.
Like I said, I'm more thankful than ever for the folks who take Buddhism seriously here. I don't always share their view. In a number of instances the disagreement I felt has been my own misunderstanding. Or sometimes I think think that I have understood something from a Mahayana teaching that goes beyond the Theravedan view. Generally turns out to be a mistake as well. Or an overreach on my part. Do I want to benefit from Buddha's teaching or not? If so, at this point I think I'm inclined to put my money on the fundamentalist's team. I don't always have to agree, but at least there is some substance to it.
Should a person be open to the idea that adultery is not really all that bad? I don't know, that seems unwise. It seems more wise to be completely closed to the idea that "adultery might not be all that bad." Or, completely closed to the idea that "Well, it's ok to break the precepts once in a while"
Yes, one should be open to every idea. Ideas are only ideas. Having considered the matter it is then up to you to decide what course you take. Buddha said one should not believe something, no matter who said it, including him, without testing it first. All his teachings, like any other teachings, should be tested through the filter of your own openness, clarity and sensitivity. Otherwise it is just another meaningless dogma.
In any case, adultery is a man-made concept. Jesus said:
You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[a] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Clearly he thought intention was more important than the act itself.
I finally figured out that if we didn't have some fundamentalist Buddhists here this would be no more than a prolonged bullshit session.
So on this forum anyone who is a serious or committed Buddhist is regarded as a sutta-thumping fundamentalist? :-/
Apparently. That's the message I'm getting.
I think the argument is about stuff like what a "serious or committed buddhist" is. Just one cursory glance at this page reveals many insights about the community and it's practices, including one thread about a woman mixing buddhist and wiccan beliefs. People here are very sensitive towards any words that may seem as a slight towards them or their practice or a chest pounding of someone elses.
if you want a community of "serious committed buddhists" in our sense, then I'd say stick with dhammawheel, although they often frustrate me just the same or more as they agree on most of the fundamentals of buddhism (that are debated here) and they STILL argue and debate over the smallest of things in the dhamma to the point where I often wonder if they get the point of this practice. I accept dhammawheel for what it is and I accept this community for what it is, an eclectic mix of people who find some connection to the teachings of the buddha, no matter how slight, with their daily life and practice.
Should a person be open to the idea that adultery is not really all that bad? I don't know, that seems unwise. It seems more wise to be completely closed to the idea that "adultery might not be all that bad." Or, completely closed to the idea that "Well, it's ok to break the precepts once in a while"
Yes, one should be open to every idea. Ideas are only ideas. Having considered the matter it is then up to you to decide what course you take. Buddha said one should not believe something, no matter who said it, including him, without testing it first. All his teachings, like any other teachings, should be tested through the filter of your own openness, clarity and sensitivity. Otherwise it is just another meaningless dogma.
In any case, adultery is a man-made concept. Jesus said:
You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[a] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Clearly he thought intention was more important than the act itself.
That makes sense and I understand what viewpoint you are coming from. It's a valid viewpoint.
You said:
Having considered the matter it is then up to you to decide what course you take. Buddha said one should not believe something, no matter who said it, including him, without testing it first. All his teachings, like any other teachings, should be tested through the filter of your own openness, clarity and sensitivity.
The viewpoint that I am talking from comes from a place that lies after all that has already occurred. From a place where the teaching has already been personally tested and already been personally verified to be true. In this place, it is no longer a meaningless dogma, but simply the actual truth of the matter. In this place you already know, due to personal experience, what is proper to believe and what is improper to believe. What is proper to do and what is not proper to do. And all of that just so happens to match up with what the Buddha said. The viewpoint that I am talking from comes from a place that lies after a period in which all that personal verification has already taken place. Just wanted to make that clear.
Although, being outside another persons mind, trying to look into it, it's very easy to mistake the "personal verification of truth place" to be nothing more than the "dogma place". Because the "dogma place" and the "personal verification of truth place" both happen to say the same things.
But it's really impossible to know which place another person is in, without being some kind of mind reader or something like that. The assumption that a person is coming from the "dogma place", simply because they say the same things, could easily be a wrong assumption.
When one has already personally verified these things to be skillful and unskillful, it is wise to close down to things that are unskillful. Just like the Buddha said in the Kalama Sutta you quoted.
When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.'
The view that I am coming from is the place where they have already been abandoned (AKA shut out, closed off, etc.). Just wanted to make that clear. I think it's wise to abandon things that you know for yourself, are unskillful, lead to harm & to suffering, etc, etc.
:om:
3
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
A webster definition is always tainted with a very western bias.
If it's up to our discerning mind .....
But if we must use wikipedia, lets look at the term "sectarianism":
Sectarianism, according to one definition, is bigotry, discrimination, or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion, class, regional or factions of a political movement. A Buddhist could have very well written that ....
I'd like to say that was a good attempt at obscuring the point but it wasn't really. It does nothing to change the fact that different sects use the same suttas but with differing interpretations.
This forum doesn't cater to any one of them exclusively and so if we don't want people disagreeing, then perhaps a discussion board is an unwise place to post teachings.
Samahita reminds me of my (late) father. We had energetic discussions when I was young. He used to say that he didn’t give his opinions but what he said was the truth. He didn’t have opinions he just expressed the truth as it was handed down to us in the Bible. My father was a hopeless case in my opinion and I was a hopeless case in his opinion. When we both realized this we stopped arguing.
Samahita claims to express the Dhamma. There’s no arguing against it. It is (in his mind) the truth. He’s a hopeless case.
Agreed! A hopeless case! But at the same time, this could easily be a good thing as a stream-winner has unwavering faith in the Buddha's dharma and no longer questions one bit of it. All of it is true! Skeptical doubting (vicikiccha) is considered a fetter of the mind to be abandoned. Because someone has abandoned it, this could very well be a good thing because the more fetters you cut, the closer to enlightenment you are.
Unwavering faith. It sounds so desperate. Of course there is room for doubt. For some people it is just too scary to go there. And I can respect that.
I don’t argue with fundamentalists; there’s too much at stake for them. That’s why it’s impossible to get through to them.
And no I’m not frustrated about my Christian upbringing. I just learned what “unwavering faith” really is; I think it is existential fear.
I would have to agree. Especially in a case where a fundamentalist belief in hell is concerned. The O/P claims that believing differently than him will land us in a hell realm so what does he think will happen to him if his faith wavers?
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
But some people think "Taking refuge" means "fundamentalism", but it actually doesn't!
I take refuge but am not a fundamentalist nor do I dislike fundamentalists. I just personally prefer to be discerning on what there is exactly to take refuge in. It isn't somebody elses faith, that's for sure.
The O/P claims that believing differently than him will land us in a hell realm
What I would like to know is if the Buddha himself claimed this?
:om:
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Buddha said to question that which doesn't make sense to us, not to be fearful of things we don't believe.
He said it doesn't matter if he said it or someone else.
To not have the ability to question your faith means that even if it were proven untrue, you would go on believing it anyways. That's a kind of delusion.
I finally figured out that if we didn't have some fundamentalist Buddhists here this would be no more than a prolonged bullshit session.
So on this forum anyone who is a serious or committed Buddhist is regarded as a sutta-thumping fundamentalist? :-/
If they tell us we will go to some land of torment if we disagree with them then yes...
Is that so unreasonable?
It wouldn't be if that was what he said. That is only what you heard. I thought even the most unconventional Buddhist accepts the 4nt. You yourself said that you know people living in a land of torment.
Maybe it would help to go back near the top of page 3 of this thread and re-read the common definition already used to explain "What do you mean by fundamentalist?" Why are we back to that again?
Fundamentalism: 1. (relating to Christian/bible beliefs)
2. : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles.
also: type of militantly conservative religious movement characterized by the advocacy of strict conformity to sacred texts. Once used exclusively to refer to American Protestants who insisted on the inerrancy of the Bible, the term fundamentalism was applied more broadly beginning in the late 20th century to a wider variety of religious movements. Indeed, in the broad sense of the term, many of the major religions of the world may be said to have fundamentalist movements.
*******
IMO: When a person refuses to speak to me in a conversational way, (about Buddhism), but instead spews scriptures and links to more scriptures, and tells me that as a monk, he's "not into chatting" with, you know, wannabe-Buddhists like me... I view that person as a fundamentalist.
When a person whose job they've chosen is to TEACH the words of Buddha, to TEACH others how to understand the texts, how to gain the insight, how to apply that insight to our modern lives, starts mocking and preaching like a fire and brimstone holy roller, yeah, I'd say that person is a (Buddhist) fundamentalist and not a real teacher at all.
Someone who would tell others, people they don't even know outside this very loose, very eclectic "Buddhist" chat forum, that they are ignorant, not really Buddhist, and will be eternally suffering like barbecuing PIGS screaming in pain; Hmmm... yeah, I don't see the compassionate, loving, gentle-but-strict "teacher" there... I see a man with a mind bent by fundamentalism.
And I would bet money, that if samahita was a Christian preacher, or an Islamic radical, you'd all be pretty quick to see it too. But because he's a Buddhist monk, well there's NO WAY he could be wrong, or out of line, or [gasp] un-Buddhist like. NO WAY! He's speaking the words of Buddha! Really? But does he LIVE the words of Buddha? What kind of example does unbending, irrational fundamentalism set?
All that said, I want everyone to remember, before this thread gets shut down, (I'm shocked it hasn't already!) that this extended, somewhat intense discussion did not all start as a means to criticize Samahita personally. (at least AFAIC)
It began as a discussion among a few of us about that sexual misconduct Dharma drop, and debating if " infidelity destroys lives. " It has strayed from that, no doubt, but conversations often do. Samahita could have discussed that point, (instead of fanatically preaching) and - most likely-this entire fundamentalism discussion could have been avoided.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I finally figured out that if we didn't have some fundamentalist Buddhists here this would be no more than a prolonged bullshit session.
So on this forum anyone who is a serious or committed Buddhist is regarded as a sutta-thumping fundamentalist? :-/
If they tell us we will go to some land of torment if we disagree with them then yes...
Is that so unreasonable?
It wouldn't be if that was what he said. That is only what you heard. I thought even the most unconventional Buddhist accepts the 4nt. You yourself said that you know people living in a land of torment.
Lol... Somehow I doubt they got that way by disagreeing with a monk about rebirth.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Personally, I do believe in rebirth but if I didn't would that cause me to be less compassionate? Would I be reborn in an unfavorable existence simply because I didn't believe in rebirth?
I'd like to say that was a good attempt at obscuring the point but it wasn't really. It does nothing to change the fact that different sects
Traditions and lineages :crazy:
use the same suttas but with differing interpretations.
Y'know I hear that a lot.
Can you offer two traditions/lineages using the same sutta/sutra with different interpretations and outline those differences?
Unwavering faith. It sounds so desperate.
It's not, though ....
I don’t argue with fundamentalists; there’s too much at stake for them. That’s why it’s impossible to get through to them.
Ever stop to think that it's not what's at stake but the conviction that they hold that you're wrong?
I just learned what “unwavering faith” really is; I think it is existential fear.
How can confidence (which is what 'faith' in a Buddhist context is) be fear .... or any sort?
The O/P claims that believing differently than him will land us in a hell realm so what does he think will happen to him if his faith wavers?
I'm sure, and provided he's a reasonable sort, that wavering, on his part, will lead to a less-than-favorable birth. What's good for the goose, y'know? But I wouldn't be too concerned about Venerable's karma, I would suggest you worry about your own.
Comments
But, you seem to be saying that Buddhist fundamentalism is fine, but all other religious fundamentalism is not. Maybe there's a need to rethink or restate.
Fundamentalism:
1. (relating to Christian/bible beliefs)
2. : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles.
also: type of militantly conservative religious movement characterized by the advocacy of strict conformity to sacred texts.
Once used exclusively to refer to American Protestants who insisted on the inerrancy of the Bible, the term fundamentalism was applied more broadly beginning in the late 20th century to a wider variety of religious movements.
Indeed, in the broad sense of the term, many of the major religions of the world may be said to have fundamentalist movements.
*******
There's nothing 'wrong' with being a fundamentalist per se. That's all well and good as far as free choice to be as literal /religious as one needs or wants to be.
But it becomes a 'negative' attitude when one uses their own fundamental beliefs to show bias and to degrade, dismiss or disparage others' level of adherence to the same faith, or any other faiths or belief systems.
I take refuge in the Buddha, Sangha and Dharma.
. . . and I don't expect perfection from any.
As our child thoughts run riot, we adulterate our capacity for metta and compassion and incessantly indulge in an unskilful orgy.
As we know a variety of sexual orientations are here. The theoretically pure, the virginal, gender x, the sex addicts and those motivated by love and good will.
From where we are can we be kinder, more tolerant of our hang ups, more accepting of limited or unusual experiences of dukkha?
Hope so.
:wave:
One can 'favor' their own beliefs over others all they like, but once one starts shaming, mocking, attacking, or disparaging others for their's... well, it's called being judgmental, biased, prejudiced, and certainly not compassionate or understanding. That behavior doesn't fit in with right action nor right speech, wouldn't you agree? Or is it all OK because it's coming from a Buddhist monk?
How would you feel if a Christian priest or preacher came into this forum and said YOU were going to burn in hell, etc etc because you didn't believe as HE did? You'd be OK with that as well?
Or would you say to yourself, Wow, that's not 'right' to be so negative towards others; "especially as a man of God" - and maybe even critique or try to discuss his bad attitude and behavior with him?
But there is some wiggle room between disparaging and matter of fact saying that someone might go to hell. I will say that there is a time and place for divulging your own belief that others are going to hell. Buddha said that there are many criterion for right speach. Truthfulness is only one aspect. So while I may believe it is true that x person will go to hell I might not speak it if it were not in the right time and place.
I find that telling people they will go to hell is tough to do right. It's abrasive. But strictly speaking you can't expect Christians to tiptoe around. Yes, darn right, they believe non-believers are going to hell. But as I said there is not much to be gained by telling others they will go to hell if you don't have the right relationship with them.
But yes I think bad karma leads to a bad place. You'll notice I haven't told anyone on the forum that they are going to hell. But my belief is that negative karma can lead to rebirth in a hell realm. The difference is that I don't attack anyone or even bring it up because almost always it is at the wrong time or is abrasive or simply unhelpful.
I of course disagree with: shaming, mocking, attacking, and disparaging.
But as I said there is not much to be gained by telling others they will go to hell if you don't have the right relationship with them.
The difference is that I don't attack anyone or even bring it up because almost always it is at the wrong time or is abrasive or simply unhelpful.
You answered your own questions, @Jeffrey.
Unwavering faith. It sounds so desperate.
Of course there is room for doubt. For some people it is just too scary to go there. And I can respect that.
I don’t argue with fundamentalists; there’s too much at stake for them. That’s why it’s impossible to get through to them.
And no I’m not frustrated about my Christian upbringing. I just learned what “unwavering faith” really is; I think it is existential fear.
is vital. How can we rise above ourselves and perfect ourselves for the benefit of other if we cannot even keep our vows. A Buddhist is not expected to ask for forgiveness after sinning. A Buddhist stays pure and keeps his agreements with himself and others for the benefit of himself and the other and for the future. In a clean relationship I don't think either side can tolerate lies or secrets so this is destructive of the relationship and therefore the lives together. Hold yourself above such things and remain pure. Nothing else can be right conduct. Just don't fall. Even anger is a sin against relations. Ask for forgiveness and vow to do better and do better. Don't fall. It is so simple. Just don't fall and you won't have to struggle back up. Quickly now, decide to remain pure with no reservation and don't change your mind. If you are already fallen then stand up and don't fall again. There can be no question. Vows are vows because they cannot be broken. mtgby
You guys are losing it.
Faith in what? The Buddhas teachings? Isn't that what taking refuge implies?
Talk about unrestrained ego!
"Personal experience of the truth of the Buddhas teaching so much so that no more doubts about it remain."
This is the opposite of fear actually.
Please, Dharma has an 8,000 +- year tradition and is the one thing we can mostly agree on. Do right action. mtgby
Just because they are wearing a saffron robe?
And only those wearing a saffron robe can be wise?
Yes, I'm going to do my own thing because I'm not a puppet and I can think for myself. Some wise people can't. They just mouth the same old words over and over.
But, we do agree to disagree. That's what these chats are all about.
No, he doesn't decide anything anymore. He's dead. And he could not decide in advance who would be wise in 2500 years.
And there you go. Buddha was one of the wisest men in history.
Yes, he can! He is that wise! What is wise and unwise is written down and it hasn't changed just because some time has passed. The truth of suffering does not change simply with the passage of time. What was true then is still true now and will forever be true.
That is why the dharma is called "timeless"
I don't always share their view.
In a number of instances the disagreement I felt has been my own misunderstanding.
Or sometimes I think think that I have understood something from a Mahayana teaching that goes beyond the Theravedan view. Generally turns out to be a mistake as well. Or an overreach on my part.
Do I want to benefit from Buddha's teaching or not?
If so, at this point I think I'm inclined to put my money on the fundamentalist's team.
I don't always have to agree, but at least there is some substance to it.
In any case, adultery is a man-made concept. Jesus said:
You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[a] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Clearly he thought intention was more important than the act itself.
if you want a community of "serious committed buddhists" in our sense, then I'd say stick with dhammawheel, although they often frustrate me just the same or more as they agree on most of the fundamentals of buddhism (that are debated here) and they STILL argue and debate over the smallest of things in the dhamma to the point where I often wonder if they get the point of this practice. I accept dhammawheel for what it is and I accept this community for what it is, an eclectic mix of people who find some connection to the teachings of the buddha, no matter how slight, with their daily life and practice.
In any case, adultery is a man-made concept. Jesus said:
You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[a] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Clearly he thought intention was more important than the act itself.
That makes sense and I understand what viewpoint you are coming from. It's a valid viewpoint.
You said: The viewpoint that I am talking from comes from a place that lies after all that has already occurred. From a place where the teaching has already been personally tested and already been personally verified to be true. In this place, it is no longer a meaningless dogma, but simply the actual truth of the matter. In this place you already know, due to personal experience, what is proper to believe and what is improper to believe. What is proper to do and what is not proper to do. And all of that just so happens to match up with what the Buddha said. The viewpoint that I am talking from comes from a place that lies after a period in which all that personal verification has already taken place. Just wanted to make that clear.
Although, being outside another persons mind, trying to look into it, it's very easy to mistake the "personal verification of truth place" to be nothing more than the "dogma place". Because the "dogma place" and the "personal verification of truth place" both happen to say the same things.
But it's really impossible to know which place another person is in, without being some kind of mind reader or something like that. The assumption that a person is coming from the "dogma place", simply because they say the same things, could easily be a wrong assumption.
When one has already personally verified these things to be skillful and unskillful, it is wise to close down to things that are unskillful. Just like the Buddha said in the Kalama Sutta you quoted. The view that I am coming from is the place where they have already been abandoned (AKA shut out, closed off, etc.). Just wanted to make that clear. I think it's wise to abandon things that you know for yourself, are unskillful, lead to harm & to suffering, etc, etc.
:om:
This forum doesn't cater to any one of them exclusively and so if we don't want people disagreeing, then perhaps a discussion board is an unwise place to post teachings.
I would have to agree. Especially in a case where a fundamentalist belief in hell is concerned. The O/P claims that believing differently than him will land us in a hell realm so what does he think will happen to him if his faith wavers?
Is that so unreasonable?
@seeker242; I take refuge but am not a fundamentalist nor do I dislike fundamentalists. I just personally prefer to be discerning on what there is exactly to take refuge in. It isn't somebody elses faith, that's for sure.
What I would like to know is if the Buddha himself claimed this?
:om:
Buddha said to question that which doesn't make sense to us, not to be fearful of things we don't believe.
He said it doesn't matter if he said it or someone else.
To not have the ability to question your faith means that even if it were proven untrue, you would go on believing it anyways. That's a kind of delusion.
I thought even the most unconventional Buddhist accepts the 4nt.
You yourself said that you know people living in a land of torment.
Why are we back to that again?
Fundamentalism:
1. (relating to Christian/bible beliefs)
2. : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles.
also: type of militantly conservative religious movement characterized by the advocacy of strict conformity to sacred texts.
Once used exclusively to refer to American Protestants who insisted on the inerrancy of the Bible, the term fundamentalism was applied more broadly beginning in the late 20th century to a wider variety of religious movements.
Indeed, in the broad sense of the term, many of the major religions of the world may be said to have fundamentalist movements.
*******
IMO: When a person refuses to speak to me in a conversational way, (about Buddhism), but instead spews scriptures and links to more scriptures, and tells me that as a monk, he's "not into chatting" with, you know, wannabe-Buddhists like me... I view that person as a fundamentalist.
When a person whose job they've chosen is to TEACH the words of Buddha, to TEACH others how to understand the texts, how to gain the insight, how to apply that insight to our modern lives, starts mocking and preaching like a fire and brimstone holy roller, yeah, I'd say that person is a (Buddhist) fundamentalist and not a real teacher at all.
Someone who would tell others, people they don't even know outside this very loose, very eclectic "Buddhist" chat forum, that
they are ignorant, not really Buddhist, and will be eternally suffering like barbecuing PIGS screaming in pain; Hmmm...
yeah, I don't see the compassionate, loving, gentle-but-strict "teacher" there... I see a man with a mind bent by fundamentalism.
And I would bet money, that if samahita was a Christian preacher, or an Islamic radical, you'd all be pretty quick to see it too.
But because he's a Buddhist monk, well there's NO WAY he could be wrong, or out of line, or [gasp] un-Buddhist like.
NO WAY! He's speaking the words of Buddha! Really?
But does he LIVE the words of Buddha?
What kind of example does unbending, irrational fundamentalism set?
All that said, I want everyone to remember, before this thread gets shut down, (I'm shocked it hasn't already!) that this extended, somewhat intense discussion did not all start as a means to criticize Samahita personally. (at least AFAIC)
It began as a discussion among a few of us about that sexual misconduct Dharma drop, and debating if " infidelity destroys lives. "
It has strayed from that, no doubt, but conversations often do.
Samahita could have discussed that point, (instead of fanatically preaching) and - most likely-this entire fundamentalism discussion could have been avoided.
I don't think so.
Can you offer two traditions/lineages using the same sutta/sutra with different interpretations and outline those differences?
It's not, though .... Ever stop to think that it's not what's at stake but the conviction that they hold that you're wrong? How can confidence (which is what 'faith' in a Buddhist context is) be fear .... or any sort? I'm sure, and provided he's a reasonable sort, that wavering, on his part, will lead to a less-than-favorable birth. What's good for the goose, y'know? But I wouldn't be too concerned about Venerable's karma, I would suggest you worry about your own.