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.
Now pray tell, please list the benefits of ascribing to your rebirth view?
To begin with, DD, I'm agnostic about rebirth: I'm open to the possibility, but I don't consider it a fact. That said, I do think that rebirth can be a useful teaching.
Being open to teachings on rebirth, for example, has the potential to lead to skillful actions. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains in Faith in Awakening: "...instead of an empirical proof for his teaching on karma, the Buddha offered a pragmatic proof: If you believe in his teachings on causality, karma, rebirth, and the four noble truths, how will you act? What kind of life will you lead? Won't you tend to be more responsible and compassionate?"
However, in the end, I don't think it really matters which view one holds because the actual practice is still the same.
Actually, I was referring to the ranting, stuka. You said that Ajahn Brahmavamso "ignorantly misrepresents and rants against those who do not [teach rebirth], encouraging others like you to do the same."
So what? He does. Speaking the truth is not "ranting".
For one thing, I don't "rant" against those who don't teach rebirth in the literal sense, and I've never told anyone that they must believe in postmortem rebirth to be a Buddhist (e.g., see my response here).
This is you ranting and doing the same as Brahmavamso. You are attempting to silence Dhamma Dathu for voicing his opinion. -- whether you choose to admit it or not:
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by Dhamma Dhatu However, now the evangelical rebirth movement is growing very strong.
An example is in Australia, we have Ajahn Brahm, Sujato and their chronies controlling Buddhist dissemination. Although they declare themselves to be part of the Ajahn Chah lineage, they are pushing rebirth very strong and teaching The Four Noble Truths & Dependent Origination as doctrines of rebirth.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
So is your mission here to bad mouth every monk and lay-person who doesn't have the same understanding of Buddhism as you do?
---and you well know that Dhamma Dhatu is not out to do anything of the kind. But he is speaking out about those who would silence him for his understanding. Like you, in this case.
Of course, I'm not shy about presenting the traditional interpretation of rebirth either, but I absolutely do not attack anyone for presenting a non-literalist interpretation (e.g., see my responses here and here).
Ah, you just did right up there dude...
I'm certainly opinionated — and I'm sure our good friend Simon can attest to that — but the fact is, I've never attacked anyone for having or presenting a non-literalist interpretation of of rebirth, the five realms of existence in which one can be reborn, etc.
uh see above, pilgrim...
Plus, what I said was said in a lighthearted fashion (hence the ":D") and I'm sorry if it came across as some kind of personal attack.
Jason
Whatever. :rolleyesc Easy for you to claim that now, hiding behind the vagaries of internet text.
I wasn't attack DD for his views about rebirth. I was questioning his motives concerning his statement about Ajahn Brahmavamso, Ajahn Sujato and their "cronies."
I wasn't attack DD for his views about rebirth. I was questioning he motives concerning his statement about Ajahn Brahmavamso, Ajahn Sujato and their "cronies."
Sure you were. Your extreme exaggeration of his purported motives gives you away.
To begin with, DD, I'm agnostic about rebirth: I'm open to the possibility, but I don't consider it a fact. That said, I do think that rebirth can be a useful teaching.
Jason
I do not accept your agnostic defense.
The reason for this is Dependent Origination is something subject to verification rather than claims of agnosticism.
Yet you have suggested Dependent Origination is about rebirth and then you try to defend your view with agnosticism.
The issue here is repudiating the verifiable rather than repudiating the unverifiable.
I am asserting, defending & verifying the verifiable.
Where as you appear to be denying the verifiable.
This is the issue.
As Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Thanissaro is the kind of bhikkhu subject to this discussion and critical analysis. Thus, he cannot be used as an authority.
Plus, I do not regard him as an authority. Personally, I regard Thanissaro as a putujanna.
That's just a few steps down the same chain of possible actions. Snide remarks are simply a lesser manifestation of the same intention.
And what makes DD or yourself innocent of the same charge? If by simply responding to both of your posts I'm trying to silence you for voicing your opinions, what is it that you're doing exactly?
Sure you were. Your extreme exaggeration of his purported motives gives you away.
And that's where you're wrong. If I wanted to attack his views of rebirth (or lack thereof), I would've done so directly. I also would've done so in this thread instead of saying:
Of course, one can just as easily re-interpret such statements, or to be more precise, translations, in such a way as to support a single-life presentation of dependent co-arising and non-postmortem rebirth (i.e., keeping solely within the framework of what I'd call psychological processes), which I have no problem with personally. That is why I prefer to leave it up to the individual to decide what interpretation or model they find more useful in their approach to the study and practice of the Dhamma.
Despite what you may think, I honestly don't have a problem with his views concerning rebirth. What I have a problem with is his attitude towards those who don't happen to share the same views.
It's not a defense; it's simply a statement of fact.
Yet you have suggested Dependent Origination is about rebirth and then you try to defend your view with agnosticism.
Hm. I recall mentioning in the other thread that "I happen to think dependent co-arising can work over many lifetimes as well as in the present moment," but I don't recall saying that dependent co-arising is about rebirth.
Where as you appear to be denying the verifiable.
This is the issue.
What is it that I'm denying exactly?
Thanissaro is the kind of bhikkhu subject to this discussion and critical analysis. Thus, he cannot be used as an authority.
Plus, I do not regard him as an authority. Personally, I regard Thanissaro as a putujanna.
I never said he was an authority, I just thought he made a good point.
And what makes DD or yourself innocent of the same charge? If by simply responding to both of your posts I'm trying to silence you for voicing your opinions, what is it that you're doing exactly?
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by stuka Sure you were. Your extreme exaggeration of his purported motives gives you away.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
And that's where you're wrong. If I wanted to attack his views of rebirth (or lack thereof), I would've done so directly. I also would've done so in this thread instead of saying:
Of course, one can just as easily re-interpret such statements, or to be more precise, translations, in such a way as to support a single-life presentation of dependent co-arising and non-postmortem rebirth (i.e., keeping solely within the framework of what I'd call psychological processes), which I have no problem with personally. That is why I prefer to leave it up to the individual to decide what interpretation or model they find more useful in their approach to the study and practice of the Dhamma.
Despite what you may think, I honestly don't have a problem with his views concerning rebirth. What I have a problem with is his attitude towards those who don't happen to share the same views.
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by stuka So what? He does. Speaking the truth is not "ranting".
This is you ranting and doing the same as Brahmavamso. You are attempting to silence Dhamma Dathu for voicing his opinion.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Or maybe it's just me "speaking the truth." (The question is, Whose truth is the real truth?)
I do not attempt to deny anyone their right to express rebirth beliefs, if they choose to hold them. Nor do I disparage their rebirth beliefs.
There is an issue, here and elsewhere, of believers who speak out against non-belief and non-belivers, challenge non-believers as if it were their business what others don't believe, and disparage non-belief and non-believers -- some at every turn and opportunity.
Dhatu is well within reason to express and address that phenomenon, and you are dead wrong to disparage him for it. There was a very interesting conversation going on between DD and FBM, before you threw your little grenade into the pot.
And Brahmavamso is dead wrong to rant against non-belief as well.
I do not attempt to deny anyone their right to express rebirth beliefs, if they choose to hold them. Nor do I disparage their rebirth beliefs.
There is an issue, here and elsewhere, of believers who speak out against non-belief and non-belivers, challenge non-believers as if it were their business what others don't believe, and disparage non-belief and non-believers -- some at every turn and opportunity.
Dhatu is well within reason to express and address that phenomenon, and you are dead wrong to disparage him for it. There was a very interesting conversation going on between DD and FBM, before you threw your little grenade into the pot.
And Brahmavamso is dead wrong to rant against non-belief as well.
The Buddha's transcendent teachings are scientific.
Hi Stuka,
Thanks for your comments. In the west the adjective "scientific" lends credence to all kinds of things, like brands of washing powder, that's why it's so tempting to append it to the things we value. It's a word Buddha never used and it's just another meaningless (thus superstitious) label plastered onto the dhamma.
I'm sure there are scientists who think Buddhism is great but I've not heard about mass conversions yet. Buddhism is not in any way "scientifically endorsed", as if that would matter anyway.
Buddha was no-white coated scientist but you are right when you say he used teachings which were verifiable and non-superstitious. This is the key point of what I was getting at with reference to nihilism and eternalism but I think it's best to put that issue to one side for now.
I'm neither parochial, nor naive, nor lacking in understanding in these matters, nor making things up as I go along, although you characterize me as such. I always enjoy discussing matters with people of differing opinions, as I feel there is generally a benefit for all participants if they are able to do so in a spirit of friendly debate.
When I studied Tibetan tenets years back there were a few stances that were forbidden under the rules of debate. Such remarks as "You have clearly misunderstood the doctrine" or "you need to learn more" or "I am right, as my conclusions are grounded in the teachings - yours are not" were considered the words of sectarians and dismissed as such.
I am certain that much of what you have to say is useful but it is devalued by the dismissive manner in which you (and Dhamma Dhatu) deliver it.
Hi Stuka,
Thanks for your comments. In the west the adjective "scientific" lends credence to all kinds of things, like brands of washing powder, that's why it's so tempting to append it to the things we value. It's a word Buddha never used and it's just another meaningless (thus superstitious) label plastered onto the dhamma.
I'm sure there are scientists who think Buddhism is great but I've not heard about mass conversions yet. Buddhism is not in any way "scientifically endorsed", as if that would matter anyway.
I was clear in my response to you that i was not using such a "pop" definition of "science", which you are, and I even referenced the scientific method in order to be specific about that.
You are using a "pop" definition of "scientific", which is meaningless -- not only in and of itself, but also meaningless and irrelevent to this discussion as well -- as if it were all that the word "scientific" meant, but I am not -- and I was clear about that -- and I am pointing out that, like real science, not the "science" that "pop" people babble about, is empirical study of how things are, just like the Buddha's transcendent teachings.
If you are not naive about what science and the scientific method are, then your statement ""Scientific Buddhism" is just as superstitious as any other 'brand' of Buddhism..., etc" is just a straw man.
Buddha was no-white coated scientist
I never said he was. I know of very few scientists who actually wear white coats, by the way.
...but you are right when you say he used teachings which were verifiable and non-superstitious.
Which, if you know what science is like you say you do, then why the deceptive use of the "pop definition"? How is that not dishonest, then?
This is the key point of what I was getting at with reference to nihilism and eternalism but I think it's best to put that issue to one side for now.
What does "nihilism" have to do with any of this? If you are calling scientific Buddhism as DD and I refer to it "nihilism", then you understand neither.
I'm neither parochial, nor naive, nor lacking in understanding in these matters, nor making things up as I go along, although you characterize me as such.
If you say so, but if not, again, why the deceit?
I always enjoy discussing matters with people of differing opinions, as I feel there is generally a benefit for all participants if they are able to do so in a spirit of friendly debate.
When I studied Tibetan tenets years back there were a few stances that were forbidden under the rules of debate. Such remarks as "You have clearly misunderstood the doctrine" or "you need to learn more" or "I am right, as my conclusions are grounded in the teachings - yours are not" were considered the words of sectarians and dismissed as such.
If you say so. The rules of debate in the Tibetan religions are irrelevant to this discussion, though.
I am certain that much of what you have to say is useful but it is devalued by the dismissive manner in which you (and Dhamma Dhatu) deliver it.
I hope you feel you can address this problem.
Interesting that you feel that way, what with the dismissive manner with which you claim that the "scientific" Buddhism that Dhamma Dhatu was speaking of -- meaning nothing less than the actual teachings of the Buddha, the perfectly spoken words of the Tathagata, the Noble, transcendent teachings rather than the mundane, worldly teachings that long preceded Him -- is " just as superstitious as any other 'brand' of Buddhism...., etc.", which devalues much of what you have to say.
I hope you feel you can address this problem.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Hi Stuka,
Buddhism is not in any way "scientifically endorsed", as if that would matter anyway.
Actually, in a roundabout way, it is....
HH the DL works closely with several Scientific organisations, specifically (I believe) concerned with analysing the workings of the brain, and to date, he has stated that nothing Science has 'discovered' has actually contradicted what Buddhism teaches, with regard to the workings of the mind during meditation.
If nothing has been found to contradict, then surely it must indicate they are not at odds.... and must therefore agree with one another.
A recent article on the workings of the brain had a scientist finally admit that perhaps they were going to have to start looking at 'brain' and 'mind' as two separate things.......finally!!
I am certain that much of what you have to say is useful but it is devalued by the dismissive manner in which you (and Dhamma Dhatu) deliver it.
Yes... there is much to commend healthy debate, but bitching and bickering just lowers the tone. It also has the effect for me, to take the 'speaker' less seriously.
If valid, cogent and salient points cannot be made without resorting to thinly veiled put-downs and insults, then I question their validity, frankly.
Regarding your comments about HHDL, Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche has also worked with modern scientists and physicists. He has worked with neuroscientists in connection with Buddhist meditation and its effects on the brain.
There's a TV clip of some research he took part in at the bottom of the page here:
Actually, in a roundabout way, it is....
HH the DL works closely with several Scientific organisations, specifically (I believe) concerned with analysing the workings of the brain, and to date, he has stated that nothing Science has 'discovered' has actually contradicted what Buddhism teaches, with regard to the workings of the mind during meditation.
If nothing has been found to contradict, then surely it must indicate they are not at odds.... and must therefore agree with one another.
A recent article on the workings of the brain had a scientist finally admit that perhaps they were going to have to start looking at 'brain' and 'mind' as two separate things.......finally!!
Absolutely right Fede,
I just think (in some areas) science has a long way to go before it catches up with Buddhism, so whilst there's some satisfaction in seeing it accord with Buddhism, it's never been something which has swung it for me either way.
Namaste
Kris
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited August 2009
Thanks, dazzle.....
I think one of the problems is that many perceive Science to be separate from other matters, subjects or studies, and tend to categorise and pigeon-hole things into compartments - 'never the twain shall meet'....
But Science has everything to do with many of the everyday ordinary things we experience.
Science is in everything.
Simply because we call it that now, it doesn't mean it's a new and unexplored concept.
Simply because the Buddha never used the word, does not necessarily mean he did not include it as part of his thinking.....maybe he referred to it as a different phenomenon... maybe he called it by various appropriate names.....
This is also a gripe by Christians, arguing about Science contradicting Faith.
Yet I personally know two scientists - one, a Chemist, the other a Neurophysicist - who are also both devout Christians.
there need not be conflict or estrangement.....
Science need not catch up with Buddhism.
There is already much in Buddhism Science agrees with, so it's more of a question of finding common ground, than catching up.
Absolutely right Fede,
I just think (in some areas) science has a long way to go before it catches up with Buddhism, so whilst there's some satisfaction in seeing it accord with Buddhism......
I concur with you on that, Kris. I am glad to see that we have all come round to discussing real science and not pop-culture's illusions of pseudo-science.
For all our modern scientific knowledge, the overwhelming majority of us are still afflicted by bhavana tanha, the thirst for being/becoming. Practically everyone assumes the existence of Self, whether they believe in soul or atman or not. Modern science doesn't directly address this, as far as know.
Many come to Buddhism out of this thirst for being/becoming. That is, they want a happy rebirth, thinking that it means that some ephemeral essence of their identity will survive the breakup of this body.
That's perfectly legitimate. There is no illegitimate reason for entering the path. As mentioned above, the suttas portray many laypeople and monks/nuns who sought out the Buddha in hopes of a happy literal rebirth.
It is only when one has worked the path to a certain point that one learns that this bhavana tanha is the problem. Hopefully, one continues on and trains to be free of it, grasping the truths of anatta and paticca samuppada in the process, and using the Noble Eightfold Path as the tool for achieving that freedom from thirst for being/becoming.
When one has accomplished this, one has indeed been 'reborn into a happier state'. Sure, it's metaphorical, but it's the complete cessation of existential suffering, the closest thing to 'heaven' that's available to humans. Thus, the superlatives attributed to Nibbana. This 'happy rebirth' is as a being that recognizes fully that what is commonly assumed to be one's identity/self is merely a convenient designation. Wisdom and compassion combine to make this knowledge liberating, not depressing.
I have no idea what Western teachers are teaching. If they are using literal rebirth to attract seekers, they may be doing so with the intent of directing their intense energies along the path described above. If so, that would indeed be noble behavior. If, on the other hand, those teachers are also still afflicted by bhavana tanha, and they're spreading attachment to and thirst for being/becoming, then that simply reveals where they are on the path. If they never progress beyond that point, then their attachment is simply too strong for them to overcome. However, one can never predict the future with an arbitrary degree of accuracy. One thing we can be sure of is change.
Therefore, it's not only pointless, but also self-defeating to speak ill of those with whom you disagree, those whom you perceive to be walking the path wrong. By speaking ill of others, you're nurturing anger and preventing the arising of compassion. At the risk sounding even preachier than I already am:
Right Effort (samma vayama)
(1) to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states;
(2) to abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen;
(3) to arouse wholesome states that have not yet arisen;
(4) to maintain and perfect wholesome states already arisen.
This is what we are to do in the process working our own paths. We cannot attend to the paths of others.
Therefore, it's not only pointless, but also self-defeating to speak ill of those with whom you disagree, those whom you perceive to be walking the path wrong. By speaking ill of others, you're nurturing anger and preventing the arising of compassion. At the risk sounding even preachier than I already am:
Right Effort (samma vayama)
(1) to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states;
(2) to abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen;
(3) to arouse wholesome states that have not yet arisen;
(4) to maintain and perfect wholesome states already arisen.
This is what we are to do in the process working our own paths. We cannot attend to the paths of others.
Ab...so...LUTE...ly.
Thanks, Former, for addressing what was really, really bothering me about this thread. I haven't seen bickering and disrespect on this board in a long time. I was hoping it might stay that way while changing in other ways. Oh well.
The word "cronies" means a sectarian group or viewpoint.
It does? I thought it meant old friends or companions. (It comes from the Greek 'khronios' which means long lasting.) Since when do cronies have to be members of a sect?
You use the word 'sectarian' a lot but I'm not sure it means what you think it means.
I slip up sometimes, too, but I do offer mea culpas when either it's pointed out to me or if I catch it myself.
I'm still a newcomer here. Am I right that not everybody here is a Buddhist, anyway? If so, it would seem natural that some people wouldn't be trying to do the path in the way that Buddhists would. Still, bickering and personal attacks aren't helping anyone. I'm all for attacking ideas for the sake of testing them, but not individuals.
FBM,
Have you had much experience with western buddhists? I have not.
grackle
No, not much. I did spend a little time with the group at Wat Pah Nanachat when I was on tudong in Thailand, but except for that, I've only chatted a little online with a few. Not much at all, really.
Ab...so...LUTE...ly.
Thanks, Former, for addressing what was really, really bothering me about this thread. I haven't seen bickering and disrespect on this board in a long time. I was hoping it might stay that way while changing in other ways. Oh well.
Well said Brigid and all. This kind of bickering and disrespect, whilst being present on other Buddhist sites has untill recently been pretty much absent here. This has made newbuddhist quite unique, in that people with various views and backgrounds (not even Buddhist) can come together in a friendly way and discuss whatever they want - even if they are of a different opinion (and let's hope they are, otherwise it gets way too cosy and boring).
FBM & Gackle I think you are right in that this hostile attitude is unusual but if you spend time on-line visiting different sites you will find a certain amount of people who operate like this. Usually very intelligent, well-read, informed and empowered (depending on sect) and on a "mission". They tolerate no other opinion and do not hesitate to denigrate others, they may even see it as their duty to do so.
If challenged about it, the response is often along the lines of; "you misjudge my intent perhaps you need to question your own motives". A perfect reply to hide behind, as there can never be a rational counter-case against it. But over time the corrosive effect of the atmosphere such people engender, destroys the harmony of on-line communities and I've seen many good people leaving and many beginners becoming disillusioned, even disgusted.
What you will never get from such individuals is compassion, humour, respect and friendship. They are on-line to win the argument, not friends. I don't know if this is typical only for westerners, as being on-line confers anonymity, so some such people may also be from elsewhere.
Over the years I've ceased my participation on several sites because of the treatment I've seem dished out to some very kind and friendly people. It's not what I became a Buddhist for, if you know what I mean.
Well said Brigid and all. This kind of bickering and disrespect, whilst being present on other Buddhist sites has untill recently been pretty much absent here. This has made newbuddhist quite unique, in that people with various views and backgrounds (not even Buddhist) can come together in a friendly way and discuss whatever they want - even if they are of a different opinion (and let's hope they are, otherwise it gets way too cosy and boring).
....
Over the years I've ceased my participation on several sites because of the treatment I've seem dished out to some very kind and friendly people. It's not what I became a Buddhist for, if you know what I mean.
Namaste
Thank you very much for that, srivijaya.
I have followed this discussion quite closely, and I will readily admit that I do have a strong bias towards one side, but what impresses me the most about it is not the intellectual points that were exchanged, but how very difficult it is to think clearly when one's fists are clenched.
I would suggest that if Buddhism is to take root and thrive in the West--as I sincerely hope that it does--it will not do so because it was the winner in some sort of a shouting match.
A couple of things have struck me about this thread. One is that the ego is very, very deep, and is closely entwined with our belief system. We all seem to have a very strong bias towards being intelligent, while down-playing the emotional aspects of our beliefs. Where does our certainty come from? It "certainly" seems to me that "certainty" has an emotional aspect which is close, very close to the ego.
Another thing is that anger is always associated with self-righteousness. And there's the old "self" again. And it seems as though our anger increases our certainty, leading us along a path slouching towards fanaticism.
We can only get angry about beliefs which contain at least a sliver of doubt. No one ever runs around shouting, "The sun will rise tomorrow! The sun will rise tomorrow!" We don't do that because we know the sun will rise tomorrow.
Question my closely-held emotional belief on the other hand ... where I actually could be wrong, and where I actually could be corrected, and where I actually could learn, study, and practice more ... and that's where my anger comes in.
I am so afraid of being wrong.
Anyway ... that's my two cent's worth. Maybe not worth a whole not, but, hey, I'm writing on short notice ...
It is such a relief to see that the basic ethos of NewBuddhist fora remains. As I read this thread, made my small contribution and experienced the reaction to it, I became worried that, after my absence, this gentle, friendly place had been hi-jacked by the polemicist sectarians. Phew!
I suppose that there will always be those who have a personal need, from whatever motive, to defend their nown opinion by attacking others. The problem is that this approach tends to prevent us from learning from them as our own "photon shield" go up.
It is so valuable to come across different opinions benevolently expressed and that has been one of the great (if rare) benefits of these fora.
Ragyaba, dear friend, I do understand disliking being 'wrong' and it has taken me some years of deliberate practice to welcome criticism as positive feedback - in the communication theory sense of feedback that results in positive change. Still isn't necessarily comfortable buit does keep the ageing brain working.
Not only that, but I've recently been reading suttas (I'll look up the name of them if you like) in which the Buddha warned against grasping any intellectual position or statement so strongly that you assert, 'Only this is right...'. I'm sure some of you have read the same suttas.
when it’s about another human comrade. Instead, aid and support him, practicing full-scale accepting ones friend in birth, aging, illness, and death.
Helping friends is the same as helping ourselves: the mind intent on benefiting a friend naturally weakens selfishness in many ways, so whatever the case, don’t lash out ‘the hell with him.’
However much selfishness diminishes, please see how one thereby gets closer to Nibbana. Save oneself by not wasting it on ‘the hell with him’ — please ponder this matter each one of you.
Thank you, Dazzle, Boo, Simon, Ragyaba, Former, and Sri (and anyone else I missed). I too thought I had somehow been transferred over to e-Sangha. I also hope that we can refrain from such flaming exchanges in the future!
Therefore, it's not only pointless, but also self-defeating to speak ill of those with whom you disagree, those whom you perceive to be walking the path wrong. By speaking ill of others, you're nurturing anger and preventing the arising of compassion. At the risk sounding even preachier than I already am:
Right Effort (samma vayama)
(1) to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states;
(2) to abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen;
(3) to arouse wholesome states that have not yet arisen;
(4) to maintain and perfect wholesome states already arisen.
This is what we are to do in the process working our own paths. We cannot attend to the paths of others.
Thanks very much for that, FBM, well spoken indeed.
Not only that, but I've recently been reading suttas (I'll look up the name of them if you like) in which the Buddha warned against grasping any intellectual position or statement so strongly that you assert, 'Only this is right...'. I'm sure some of you have read the same suttas.
One is the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta (<--link), MN 136, which features the constant refrain: "When he says thus: 'Those who know thus know rightly; those who know otherwise are mistaken in their knowledge,' I do not concede that to him."
When I studied Tibetan tenets years back there were a few stances that were forbidden under the rules of debate.
I hope you feel you can address this problem.
For me, the above is an example of intolerance masked as tolerance I am referring to. Here, the impression is one has invoked a fundamentalist standpoint that all must conform to.
Just like many of the post above, it is discursive to the discussion at hand.
If the discussion is followed carefully, one will note the first departure from the actual discussion was as follows:
So is your mission here to bad mouth every monk and lay-person who doesn't have the same understanding of Buddhism as you do?
One is the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta (<--link), MN 136, which features the constant refrain: "When he says thus: 'Those who know thus know rightly; those who know otherwise are mistaken in their knowledge,' I do not concede that to him."
Friend Stuka
That is the case but not the context.
The context of the Buddha's words here are views about karma, where one holds all bad karma will lead to a bad result and all good karma will lead to a good result.
Thus, the Buddha is refering here to intolerant views about karma.
For example, to hold the view "only syrupy cordial agreement is beneficial" is the kind of view the Buddha is rebuking here.
I disagree it was well spoken. It is merely another departure from the actual discussion that was occuring.
Sorry if that came across as a derail. It was actually an attempt to put an end to the derail and drag the topic back to that in the OP, thus the references to science and what's happening with Buddhism in the West.
The Canki Sutta was the one I was reading. An excerpt:
"If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth.
"If a person likes something... holds an unbroken tradition... has something reasoned through analogy... has something he agrees to, having pondered views, his statement, 'This is what I agree to, having pondered views,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth."
So I was hoping that we could get back to discussing the "Call for a new Buddhism".
Considering the diversity of approaches, understandings, traditions, lineages, interpretations and goals of the Western Buddhists, is it actually possible to engineer a single set of doctrines and practices that would satisfy all? Seems unlikely, but maybe not impossible.
One must be very very careful to mask intolerance under the veil of 'tolerance'.
'Sectarian' means there exist differing viewpoints.
Sectarian I assume means the same as a 'secular' society.
Thus I use the term alot because it acknowledges & accepts diversity & difference.
This is the opposite of seeking to create a cult-like unity, such as notions of 'the One god'.
One must be very careful here.
I just want to clear this up once and for all and then I will shut up about it.
DD,
I brought this up because your use of the word 'sectarian' is often confusing to me and I end up not understanding the points you're trying to make.
So for the record this is what the word 'sectarian' means:
Sectarian
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to sectaries or sects.
2. narrowly confined or devoted to a particular sect.
3. narrowly confined or limited in interest, purpose, scope, etc.
–noun
4. a member of a sect.
5. a bigoted or narrow-minded adherent of a sect.
from here
________________________
Sectarian: of or relating to or characteristic of a sect or sects; "sectarian differences". Narrow-minded; having a limited perspective. Adhering or confined to the dogmatic limits of a sect or denomination; partisan.
from here
____________________________
1. of or characteristic of a sect
2. devoted to, or prejudiced in favor of, some sect
3. narrow-minded; limited; parochial
noun
1. Obsolete an apostate from an established church
2. a member of any religious sect
3. a person who is blindly and narrow-mindedly devoted to a sect
from here
______________________________
Definitions of 'sectarian' on the Web:
* of or relating to or characteristic of a sect or sects; "sectarian differences"
* a member of a sect; "most sectarians are intolerant of the views of any other sect"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* Sectarianism 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 or the factions of a political movement.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian
* A member of a sect; A bigot; Of, or relating to a sect; Dogmatic or partisan; Parochial or narrow-minded; Bigoted
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sectarian
* sectarianism - a narrow-minded adherence to a particular sect or party or denomination; "he condemned religious sectarianism"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* sectarianism - A strong or excessive devotion to a particular form of religion, often leading to a resolute prejudice against other beliefs. www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm
Im going to have to read this in full when i have the time. But i did skim through it and here are my initial thoughts...
1 ) The writer lacks a significant understanding of the cultural roots of Buddhism. There is not a religion or path on this earth that is not influenced by the culture, climate, geography , language etc from which it sprang.
Judaism, although on the surface appearing quite ''western'' in practise is a middle eastern religion. Its language, its festivals, dress code, rituals, even its calander are all based on the climate and life in Israel. Its practitioners may seem very western, may all speak differant languages, but the foundations behind every word, every law and ritual in judaism are middle eastern - from a country where - until only recently - people where still pretty much living in tents chasing goats all day...
When people convert into Judaism - as I did ( all beit with jewish roots ) from a non middle eastern background - a certain cultural shift and adoption needed to take place within me in order to fully appreciate and make use of traditions in judaism and to be part of the community. Some of them were subtle ( hand gestures, intonation, body language etc ) some of them were larger - diet , lifestyle etc ... regardless of how much judaism has been adapted to the west, it remains still a middle eastern faith and a change is still required on a personal level in order to follow it...
The same is true for buddhism... regardless of whethere its practitioners now are indian, chinese, nepali, wether they wear orange robes, saris, dhotis or jeans ... its origins, the foundations of its philosophy are eastern in origin... the writer seems to feel that some how this aspect is bad, and that Buddhism should be adapted completely in order to fit western minds and lifestyles......
my feeling on this is that while a degree of adaption is neccessary a complete change would take away part of the foundations on which Buddhism was built and i dont think that would be a good thing...
people have been changing religions and cultures for thousands of years. I think its perfectly possible for a western mind to become more ''eastern'' in its thinking.. to take on new ideas as easily as a person takes on a new name, or adapts to new cultural norms ... If we adapted Buddhism completly for western minds, my feeling is that it would no longer be Buddhism... but a simply another watered down philosophy for western minds...
2 ) this whole issue the writer has with Buddhisms supposedly doom and gloom focus on death and suffering.. and the way he feels its devoid of joy etc ...
to me Buddhism is full of joy and love... but it takes its inspiration and drive - not from any God - but from observing what has been happening in nature and life for thousands of years... I think the writer comepletly misunderstands the direction Buddhism comes from on this point...
To me - the focus on death and suffering is about learning to appreaciate what we have by understanding what we might so easily NOT have... and by focusing on the suffering of others, so develop compassion for them and a desire to end their suffering...
humans , by nature are naturally drawn to pleasurable things... and will pretty much do any thing to aviod and unpleasant experience... throughout history - a desire to end a suffering has lead to the greatest advancements and i think the writer doesnt understand this at all...
Aside from the fact that I agree with everything you said, Channah, I think the way you said it was just amazing. Great post. I'd love to read more of your thoughts so please don't hold back.
(This post is in reference to the last post on the previous page.)
Comments
To begin with, DD, I'm agnostic about rebirth: I'm open to the possibility, but I don't consider it a fact. That said, I do think that rebirth can be a useful teaching.
Being open to teachings on rebirth, for example, has the potential to lead to skillful actions. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains in Faith in Awakening: "...instead of an empirical proof for his teaching on karma, the Buddha offered a pragmatic proof: If you believe in his teachings on causality, karma, rebirth, and the four noble truths, how will you act? What kind of life will you lead? Won't you tend to be more responsible and compassionate?"
However, in the end, I don't think it really matters which view one holds because the actual practice is still the same.
So what? He does. Speaking the truth is not "ranting".
This is you ranting and doing the same as Brahmavamso. You are attempting to silence Dhamma Dathu for voicing his opinion. -- whether you choose to admit it or not:
Ah, you just did right up there dude...
uh see above, pilgrim...
Whatever. :rolleyesc Easy for you to claim that now, hiding behind the vagaries of internet text.
If I wanted to "silence" DD for voicing his opinion, I'd simply ban him and delete his posts.
I wasn't attack DD for his views about rebirth. I was questioning his motives concerning his statement about Ajahn Brahmavamso, Ajahn Sujato and their "cronies."
Fair enough.
That's just a few steps down the same chain of possible actions. Snide remarks are simply a lesser manifestation of the same intention.
Sure you were. Your extreme exaggeration of his purported motives gives you away.
I do not accept your agnostic defense.
The reason for this is Dependent Origination is something subject to verification rather than claims of agnosticism.
Yet you have suggested Dependent Origination is about rebirth and then you try to defend your view with agnosticism.
The issue here is repudiating the verifiable rather than repudiating the unverifiable.
I am asserting, defending & verifying the verifiable.
Where as you appear to be denying the verifiable.
This is the issue.
Thanissaro is the kind of bhikkhu subject to this discussion and critical analysis. Thus, he cannot be used as an authority.
Plus, I do not regard him as an authority. Personally, I regard Thanissaro as a putujanna.
:buck:
I post Dhamma.
One must be careful of 'self-protective' motives.
I do not recall your asking any direct questions about this matter.
The word "cronies" means a sectarian group or viewpoint.
Thus to assume an underlying motive rather than what was literally, frankly and honestly said is the motive best to be questioned.
In other words, I would recommend with the mirror of Dhamma to examine one's own motives.
Please refer to MN 61 for guidence.
And what makes DD or yourself innocent of the same charge? If by simply responding to both of your posts I'm trying to silence you for voicing your opinions, what is it that you're doing exactly?
And that's where you're wrong. If I wanted to attack his views of rebirth (or lack thereof), I would've done so directly. I also would've done so in this thread instead of saying:
Despite what you may think, I honestly don't have a problem with his views concerning rebirth. What I have a problem with is his attitude towards those who don't happen to share the same views.
It's not a defense; it's simply a statement of fact.
Hm. I recall mentioning in the other thread that "I happen to think dependent co-arising can work over many lifetimes as well as in the present moment," but I don't recall saying that dependent co-arising is about rebirth.
What is it that I'm denying exactly?
I never said he was an authority, I just thought he made a good point.
Or maybe it's just me "speaking the truth." (The question is, Whose truth is the real truth?)
There is an issue, here and elsewhere, of believers who speak out against non-belief and non-belivers, challenge non-believers as if it were their business what others don't believe, and disparage non-belief and non-believers -- some at every turn and opportunity.
Dhatu is well within reason to express and address that phenomenon, and you are dead wrong to disparage him for it. There was a very interesting conversation going on between DD and FBM, before you threw your little grenade into the pot.
And Brahmavamso is dead wrong to rant against non-belief as well.
OK.
Thanks for your comments. In the west the adjective "scientific" lends credence to all kinds of things, like brands of washing powder, that's why it's so tempting to append it to the things we value. It's a word Buddha never used and it's just another meaningless (thus superstitious) label plastered onto the dhamma.
I'm sure there are scientists who think Buddhism is great but I've not heard about mass conversions yet. Buddhism is not in any way "scientifically endorsed", as if that would matter anyway.
Buddha was no-white coated scientist but you are right when you say he used teachings which were verifiable and non-superstitious. This is the key point of what I was getting at with reference to nihilism and eternalism but I think it's best to put that issue to one side for now.
I'm neither parochial, nor naive, nor lacking in understanding in these matters, nor making things up as I go along, although you characterize me as such. I always enjoy discussing matters with people of differing opinions, as I feel there is generally a benefit for all participants if they are able to do so in a spirit of friendly debate.
When I studied Tibetan tenets years back there were a few stances that were forbidden under the rules of debate. Such remarks as "You have clearly misunderstood the doctrine" or "you need to learn more" or "I am right, as my conclusions are grounded in the teachings - yours are not" were considered the words of sectarians and dismissed as such.
I am certain that much of what you have to say is useful but it is devalued by the dismissive manner in which you (and Dhamma Dhatu) deliver it.
I hope you feel you can address this problem.
Namste
Kris
I was clear in my response to you that i was not using such a "pop" definition of "science", which you are, and I even referenced the scientific method in order to be specific about that.
You are using a "pop" definition of "scientific", which is meaningless -- not only in and of itself, but also meaningless and irrelevent to this discussion as well -- as if it were all that the word "scientific" meant, but I am not -- and I was clear about that -- and I am pointing out that, like real science, not the "science" that "pop" people babble about, is empirical study of how things are, just like the Buddha's transcendent teachings.
If you are not naive about what science and the scientific method are, then your statement ""Scientific Buddhism" is just as superstitious as any other 'brand' of Buddhism..., etc" is just a straw man.
I never said he was. I know of very few scientists who actually wear white coats, by the way.
Which, if you know what science is like you say you do, then why the deceptive use of the "pop definition"? How is that not dishonest, then?
What does "nihilism" have to do with any of this? If you are calling scientific Buddhism as DD and I refer to it "nihilism", then you understand neither.
If you say so, but if not, again, why the deceit?
If you say so. The rules of debate in the Tibetan religions are irrelevant to this discussion, though.
Interesting that you feel that way, what with the dismissive manner with which you claim that the "scientific" Buddhism that Dhamma Dhatu was speaking of -- meaning nothing less than the actual teachings of the Buddha, the perfectly spoken words of the Tathagata, the Noble, transcendent teachings rather than the mundane, worldly teachings that long preceded Him -- is " just as superstitious as any other 'brand' of Buddhism...., etc.", which devalues much of what you have to say.
I hope you feel you can address this problem.
HH the DL works closely with several Scientific organisations, specifically (I believe) concerned with analysing the workings of the brain, and to date, he has stated that nothing Science has 'discovered' has actually contradicted what Buddhism teaches, with regard to the workings of the mind during meditation.
If nothing has been found to contradict, then surely it must indicate they are not at odds.... and must therefore agree with one another.
A recent article on the workings of the brain had a scientist finally admit that perhaps they were going to have to start looking at 'brain' and 'mind' as two separate things.......finally!!
Yes... there is much to commend healthy debate, but bitching and bickering just lowers the tone. It also has the effect for me, to take the 'speaker' less seriously.
If valid, cogent and salient points cannot be made without resorting to thinly veiled put-downs and insults, then I question their validity, frankly.
Regarding your comments about HHDL, Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche has also worked with modern scientists and physicists. He has worked with neuroscientists in connection with Buddhist meditation and its effects on the brain.
There's a TV clip of some research he took part in at the bottom of the page here:
http://mingyur.org/index.html
Kind wishes,
Dazzle
Absolutely right Fede,
I just think (in some areas) science has a long way to go before it catches up with Buddhism, so whilst there's some satisfaction in seeing it accord with Buddhism, it's never been something which has swung it for me either way.
Namaste
Kris
I think one of the problems is that many perceive Science to be separate from other matters, subjects or studies, and tend to categorise and pigeon-hole things into compartments - 'never the twain shall meet'....
But Science has everything to do with many of the everyday ordinary things we experience.
Science is in everything.
Simply because we call it that now, it doesn't mean it's a new and unexplored concept.
Simply because the Buddha never used the word, does not necessarily mean he did not include it as part of his thinking.....maybe he referred to it as a different phenomenon... maybe he called it by various appropriate names.....
This is also a gripe by Christians, arguing about Science contradicting Faith.
Yet I personally know two scientists - one, a Chemist, the other a Neurophysicist - who are also both devout Christians.
there need not be conflict or estrangement.....
Science need not catch up with Buddhism.
There is already much in Buddhism Science agrees with, so it's more of a question of finding common ground, than catching up.
Just my opinion..........
I concur with you on that, Kris. I am glad to see that we have all come round to discussing real science and not pop-culture's illusions of pseudo-science.
Many come to Buddhism out of this thirst for being/becoming. That is, they want a happy rebirth, thinking that it means that some ephemeral essence of their identity will survive the breakup of this body.
That's perfectly legitimate. There is no illegitimate reason for entering the path. As mentioned above, the suttas portray many laypeople and monks/nuns who sought out the Buddha in hopes of a happy literal rebirth.
It is only when one has worked the path to a certain point that one learns that this bhavana tanha is the problem. Hopefully, one continues on and trains to be free of it, grasping the truths of anatta and paticca samuppada in the process, and using the Noble Eightfold Path as the tool for achieving that freedom from thirst for being/becoming.
When one has accomplished this, one has indeed been 'reborn into a happier state'. Sure, it's metaphorical, but it's the complete cessation of existential suffering, the closest thing to 'heaven' that's available to humans. Thus, the superlatives attributed to Nibbana. This 'happy rebirth' is as a being that recognizes fully that what is commonly assumed to be one's identity/self is merely a convenient designation. Wisdom and compassion combine to make this knowledge liberating, not depressing.
I have no idea what Western teachers are teaching. If they are using literal rebirth to attract seekers, they may be doing so with the intent of directing their intense energies along the path described above. If so, that would indeed be noble behavior. If, on the other hand, those teachers are also still afflicted by bhavana tanha, and they're spreading attachment to and thirst for being/becoming, then that simply reveals where they are on the path. If they never progress beyond that point, then their attachment is simply too strong for them to overcome. However, one can never predict the future with an arbitrary degree of accuracy. One thing we can be sure of is change.
Therefore, it's not only pointless, but also self-defeating to speak ill of those with whom you disagree, those whom you perceive to be walking the path wrong. By speaking ill of others, you're nurturing anger and preventing the arising of compassion. At the risk sounding even preachier than I already am:
Right Effort (samma vayama)
(1) to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states;
(2) to abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen;
(3) to arouse wholesome states that have not yet arisen;
(4) to maintain and perfect wholesome states already arisen.
This is what we are to do in the process working our own paths. We cannot attend to the paths of others.
Thanks, Former, for addressing what was really, really bothering me about this thread. I haven't seen bickering and disrespect on this board in a long time. I was hoping it might stay that way while changing in other ways. Oh well.
You use the word 'sectarian' a lot but I'm not sure it means what you think it means.
Thanks a lot for your words. The kind of bickering I have seen here is so foreign to my experience with Buddhism.
Brigid,
Here in the US corrupt hangers on of local politicians are often called cronies.
grackle
I'm still a newcomer here. Am I right that not everybody here is a Buddhist, anyway? If so, it would seem natural that some people wouldn't be trying to do the path in the way that Buddhists would. Still, bickering and personal attacks aren't helping anyone. I'm all for attacking ideas for the sake of testing them, but not individuals.
Have you had much experience with western buddhists? I have not.
grackle
No, not much. I did spend a little time with the group at Wat Pah Nanachat when I was on tudong in Thailand, but except for that, I've only chatted a little online with a few. Not much at all, really.
Well said Brigid and all. This kind of bickering and disrespect, whilst being present on other Buddhist sites has untill recently been pretty much absent here. This has made newbuddhist quite unique, in that people with various views and backgrounds (not even Buddhist) can come together in a friendly way and discuss whatever they want - even if they are of a different opinion (and let's hope they are, otherwise it gets way too cosy and boring).
FBM & Gackle I think you are right in that this hostile attitude is unusual but if you spend time on-line visiting different sites you will find a certain amount of people who operate like this. Usually very intelligent, well-read, informed and empowered (depending on sect) and on a "mission". They tolerate no other opinion and do not hesitate to denigrate others, they may even see it as their duty to do so.
If challenged about it, the response is often along the lines of; "you misjudge my intent perhaps you need to question your own motives". A perfect reply to hide behind, as there can never be a rational counter-case against it. But over time the corrosive effect of the atmosphere such people engender, destroys the harmony of on-line communities and I've seen many good people leaving and many beginners becoming disillusioned, even disgusted.
What you will never get from such individuals is compassion, humour, respect and friendship. They are on-line to win the argument, not friends. I don't know if this is typical only for westerners, as being on-line confers anonymity, so some such people may also be from elsewhere.
Over the years I've ceased my participation on several sites because of the treatment I've seem dished out to some very kind and friendly people. It's not what I became a Buddhist for, if you know what I mean.
Namaste
Thank you very much for that, srivijaya.
I have followed this discussion quite closely, and I will readily admit that I do have a strong bias towards one side, but what impresses me the most about it is not the intellectual points that were exchanged, but how very difficult it is to think clearly when one's fists are clenched.
I would suggest that if Buddhism is to take root and thrive in the West--as I sincerely hope that it does--it will not do so because it was the winner in some sort of a shouting match.
A couple of things have struck me about this thread. One is that the ego is very, very deep, and is closely entwined with our belief system. We all seem to have a very strong bias towards being intelligent, while down-playing the emotional aspects of our beliefs. Where does our certainty come from? It "certainly" seems to me that "certainty" has an emotional aspect which is close, very close to the ego.
Another thing is that anger is always associated with self-righteousness. And there's the old "self" again. And it seems as though our anger increases our certainty, leading us along a path slouching towards fanaticism.
We can only get angry about beliefs which contain at least a sliver of doubt. No one ever runs around shouting, "The sun will rise tomorrow! The sun will rise tomorrow!" We don't do that because we know the sun will rise tomorrow.
Question my closely-held emotional belief on the other hand ... where I actually could be wrong, and where I actually could be corrected, and where I actually could learn, study, and practice more ... and that's where my anger comes in.
I am so afraid of being wrong.
Anyway ... that's my two cent's worth. Maybe not worth a whole not, but, hey, I'm writing on short notice ...
I suppose that there will always be those who have a personal need, from whatever motive, to defend their nown opinion by attacking others. The problem is that this approach tends to prevent us from learning from them as our own "photon shield" go up.
It is so valuable to come across different opinions benevolently expressed and that has been one of the great (if rare) benefits of these fora.
Ragyaba, dear friend, I do understand disliking being 'wrong' and it has taken me some years of deliberate practice to welcome criticism as positive feedback - in the communication theory sense of feedback that results in positive change. Still isn't necessarily comfortable buit does keep the ageing brain working.
Not only that, but I've recently been reading suttas (I'll look up the name of them if you like) in which the Buddha warned against grasping any intellectual position or statement so strongly that you assert, 'Only this is right...'. I'm sure some of you have read the same suttas.
<TABLE height=430 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=820 border=0 cool="cool" gridx="16" gridy="16" showgridx="showgridx" showgridy="showgridy"><TBODY><TR height=29><TD vAlign=top width=417 height=48 rowSpan=2 content="content" csheight="35" xpos="2">Don't 'The Hell With Him'
by the late Buddhadasa Bhikku
</TD><TD width=400 colSpan=3 height=29></TD><TD width=1 height=29><SPACER width="1" height="29" type="block" /></TD></TR><TR height=19><TD width=46 colSpan=2 height=19></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left width=354 height=398 rowSpan=2 xpos="465"></TD><TD width=1 height=19><SPACER width="1" height="19" type="block" /></TD></TR><TR height=379><TD vAlign=top width=451 colSpan=2 height=379 content="content" csheight="364" xpos="2">Don’t recklessly spew ‘the hell with him’
when it’s about another human comrade.
Instead, aid and support him, practicing full-scale
accepting ones friend in birth, aging, illness, and death.
Helping friends is the same as helping ourselves:
the mind intent on benefiting a friend
naturally weakens selfishness in many ways, so
whatever the case, don’t lash out ‘the hell with him.’
However much selfishness diminishes, please
see how one thereby gets closer to Nibbana.
Save oneself by not wasting it on ‘the hell with him’
— please ponder this matter each one of you.
_/\_
</TD><TD width=12 height=379></TD><TD width=1 height=379><SPACER width="1" height="379" type="block" /></TD></TR><TR height=1 cntrlrow="cntrlrow"><TD width=2 height=1><SPACER width="2" height="1" type="block" /></TD><TD width=417 height=1><SPACER width="417" height="1" type="block" /></TD><TD width=34 height=1><SPACER width="34" height="1" type="block" /></TD><TD width=12 height=1><SPACER width="12" height="1" type="block" /></TD><TD width=354 height=1><SPACER width="354" height="1" type="block" /></TD><TD width=1 height=1></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Palzang
Thanks very much for that, FBM, well spoken indeed.
One is the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta (<--link), MN 136, which features the constant refrain: "When he says thus: 'Those who know thus know rightly; those who know otherwise are mistaken in their knowledge,' I do not concede that to him."
This, with a negative connotion, is termed "cronyism" in common speech.
'Sectarian' means there exist differing viewpoints.
Sectarian I assume means the same as a 'secular' society.
Thus I use the term alot because it acknowledges & accepts diversity & difference.
This is the opposite of seeking to create a cult-like unity, such as notions of 'the One god'.
One must be very careful here.
Just like many of the post above, it is discursive to the discussion at hand.
If the discussion is followed carefully, one will note the first departure from the actual discussion was as follows:
Take care friends.
I disagree it was well spoken. It is merely another departure from the actual discussion that was occuring.
That is the case but not the context.
The context of the Buddha's words here are views about karma, where one holds all bad karma will lead to a bad result and all good karma will lead to a good result.
Thus, the Buddha is refering here to intolerant views about karma.
For example, to hold the view "only syrupy cordial agreement is beneficial" is the kind of view the Buddha is rebuking here.
Sorry if that came across as a derail. It was actually an attempt to put an end to the derail and drag the topic back to that in the OP, thus the references to science and what's happening with Buddhism in the West.
"If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth.
"If a person likes something... holds an unbroken tradition... has something reasoned through analogy... has something he agrees to, having pondered views, his statement, 'This is what I agree to, having pondered views,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.than.html
So I was hoping that we could get back to discussing the "Call for a new Buddhism".
Considering the diversity of approaches, understandings, traditions, lineages, interpretations and goals of the Western Buddhists, is it actually possible to engineer a single set of doctrines and practices that would satisfy all? Seems unlikely, but maybe not impossible.
DD,
I brought this up because your use of the word 'sectarian' is often confusing to me and I end up not understanding the points you're trying to make.
So for the record this is what the word 'sectarian' means:
Sectarian
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to sectaries or sects.
2. narrowly confined or devoted to a particular sect.
3. narrowly confined or limited in interest, purpose, scope, etc.
–noun
4. a member of a sect.
5. a bigoted or narrow-minded adherent of a sect.
from here
________________________
Sectarian: of or relating to or characteristic of a sect or sects; "sectarian differences". Narrow-minded; having a limited perspective. Adhering or confined to the dogmatic limits of a sect or denomination; partisan.
from here
____________________________
1. of or characteristic of a sect
2. devoted to, or prejudiced in favor of, some sect
3. narrow-minded; limited; parochial
noun
1. Obsolete an apostate from an established church
2. a member of any religious sect
3. a person who is blindly and narrow-mindedly devoted to a sect
from here
______________________________
Definitions of 'sectarian' on the Web:
* of or relating to or characteristic of a sect or sects; "sectarian differences"
* a member of a sect; "most sectarians are intolerant of the views of any other sect"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* Sectarianism 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 or the factions of a political movement.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian
* A member of a sect; A bigot; Of, or relating to a sect; Dogmatic or partisan; Parochial or narrow-minded; Bigoted
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sectarian
* sectarianism - a narrow-minded adherence to a particular sect or party or denomination; "he condemned religious sectarianism"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* sectarianism - A strong or excessive devotion to a particular form of religion, often leading to a resolute prejudice against other beliefs.
www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm
from here
So I'm sure you can understand my confusion.
I won't bring it up again. :buck:
1 ) The writer lacks a significant understanding of the cultural roots of Buddhism. There is not a religion or path on this earth that is not influenced by the culture, climate, geography , language etc from which it sprang.
Judaism, although on the surface appearing quite ''western'' in practise is a middle eastern religion. Its language, its festivals, dress code, rituals, even its calander are all based on the climate and life in Israel. Its practitioners may seem very western, may all speak differant languages, but the foundations behind every word, every law and ritual in judaism are middle eastern - from a country where - until only recently - people where still pretty much living in tents chasing goats all day...
When people convert into Judaism - as I did ( all beit with jewish roots ) from a non middle eastern background - a certain cultural shift and adoption needed to take place within me in order to fully appreciate and make use of traditions in judaism and to be part of the community. Some of them were subtle ( hand gestures, intonation, body language etc ) some of them were larger - diet , lifestyle etc ... regardless of how much judaism has been adapted to the west, it remains still a middle eastern faith and a change is still required on a personal level in order to follow it...
The same is true for buddhism... regardless of whethere its practitioners now are indian, chinese, nepali, wether they wear orange robes, saris, dhotis or jeans ... its origins, the foundations of its philosophy are eastern in origin... the writer seems to feel that some how this aspect is bad, and that Buddhism should be adapted completely in order to fit western minds and lifestyles......
my feeling on this is that while a degree of adaption is neccessary a complete change would take away part of the foundations on which Buddhism was built and i dont think that would be a good thing...
people have been changing religions and cultures for thousands of years. I think its perfectly possible for a western mind to become more ''eastern'' in its thinking.. to take on new ideas as easily as a person takes on a new name, or adapts to new cultural norms ... If we adapted Buddhism completly for western minds, my feeling is that it would no longer be Buddhism... but a simply another watered down philosophy for western minds...
2 ) this whole issue the writer has with Buddhisms supposedly doom and gloom focus on death and suffering.. and the way he feels its devoid of joy etc ...
to me Buddhism is full of joy and love... but it takes its inspiration and drive - not from any God - but from observing what has been happening in nature and life for thousands of years... I think the writer comepletly misunderstands the direction Buddhism comes from on this point...
To me - the focus on death and suffering is about learning to appreaciate what we have by understanding what we might so easily NOT have... and by focusing on the suffering of others, so develop compassion for them and a desire to end their suffering...
humans , by nature are naturally drawn to pleasurable things... and will pretty much do any thing to aviod and unpleasant experience... throughout history - a desire to end a suffering has lead to the greatest advancements and i think the writer doesnt understand this at all...
thats my two cents for now - interesting article
Aside from the fact that I agree with everything you said, Channah, I think the way you said it was just amazing. Great post. I'd love to read more of your thoughts so please don't hold back.
(This post is in reference to the last post on the previous page.)