5 ms·

Honestly as a Buddhist, I find perennialism and the western approach to Buddhism to be offensive and degrading to the religion. Many such people even claim that

Honestly as a Buddhist, I find perennialism and the western approach to Buddhism to be offensive and degrading to the religion. Many such people even claim that traditional Buddhist lineages are "backwards" and "for stupid people". The pushing of secularists into Buddhist spaces is a huge issue and invalidating traditional Buddhist voices in the west. The worst part is that the Buddha even specifically spoke out against many of the points secularists rely on, for example he spoke out extensively against the idea that death is the end. People who believed that were called annihilationists. However people approaching Buddhism in a secular way choose to ignore this, because they think their secular worldview is basic, immutable, and "obvious". Not accepting that the whole Buddhist project contradicts that, they try and suppress Asian voices and spaces, and instead support spaces that already agree with their preconceptions. It is just another form of colonialism, and I really don't like it.

itisit 5y ago
Sorry, this comes across as surprisingly dogmatic and sanctimonious for someone who identifies as Buddhist. Religion can be used in any way people fancy. It goes without saying, but there is no right/pure/true way to practice a religion, especially considering their imaginative basis.
- joeberon 5y ago
  Why would it be surprising? Buddhism is a pretty dogmatic religion. Literally the first of the Buddha's eight fold path is Right View, which means "you should believe in rebirth, believe in life after death, believe in karma, etc." He said that the first step is to have the correct dogmatic opinion. He actually said it is the forerunner to the path and by far the most important element. Once again, the idea that Buddhism would somehow be less dogmatic than other religions is a Western projection onto Buddhism. As far as religions go, Buddhism is pretty dogmatic and prescribes a very specific worldview. The difference is that it actually gives you the tools to verify those things if you wish, at least if you feel up for it.
  - itisit 5y ago
    I think we mean different things when we use the words "Buddhism"and "dogmatic". I'll leave it at that.
    - joeberon 5y ago
      dogmatic: > inclined to lay down principles as undeniably true. dogma: > a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Buddhism: > a widespread Asian religion or philosophy, founded by Siddartha Gautama in north-eastern India in the 5th century BC. These are the definitions I'm using
    - joeberon 5y ago
      Amazingly you are demonstrating the exact racism and colonialist ignorance that I am arguing against in the original post. It is actively erasing traditional Buddhist voices, people who have actually studied Buddhism instead of projecting their idea of what Buddhism is onto it. Have you studied Buddhism? Which texts have you read? Which Buddhist concepts have you learnt about? Many people who profess to know what Buddhism really is truthfully answer: no, none, none. The best way is to just show someone a morally disagreeable teaching to progressives, like for example how the Buddha said that poor people are poor because in a previous life they stole, or that abortion will send you to hell, or that by letting women join the sangha the lifespan of the Dhamma is reduced from 1000 years to 500 years. Or just show them just how much rebirth and karma is in basically almost every sutta. That usually shocks them out of their absolute stupidity and ignorance.
      - bmh100 5y ago
        No one owns any religion, not even the Pope or the Dalai Lama. There is no "territory" to "colonize", and I haven't seen any evidence of racial superiority being a motivation. People develop their own belief systems over time. Did Gautama Buddha erase traditional Hindu voices when he spread his new religion in India? Was Gautama Buddha motivated by a feeling that his Nepal race was superior to the Hindu Indo-Aryans? Did Gautama Buddha seek to "colonize" the Indian subcontinent somehow?
klik99 5y ago
On the other hand, Buddhism has a rich tradition of interacting and fusing with local beliefs and creating totally new interpretaions, which then go on to fight with each other about who's right and who's got it backwards. I once saw a lecture by the Dalai Lama and where he spent an hour defending the purity of his lineage! Take for example the Zen koan: "Why did Bodhidharma come to China?" "The cypress in the courtyard." (referring to the tree growing in the center of their monastery.) Zen is a very Japanese version of Chen Buddhism, which was in turn a very Taoist free wheeling version of Buddhism from India, which used existing Indian mythology. Zen Buddhists is very formal and ritual focused, and their koans mostly being about a Chen Buddhist monk who spent his little money on alcohol in the nearby town rather than food. The Tibetan monk Chögyam Trungpa famously said Buddhism would come to the West as psychology. Who cares who's right and who's wrong, as long as it helps you see the cypress in the courtyard?
- joeberon 5y ago
  There was never a transmission of Buddhism that rejected all of the core teachings and doctrine. Why would you even want to call yourself a Buddhist if you reject Buddhism? It is just fashion to these people. It’s like being a communist who thinks private ownership of the means of production is good, it makes no sense. Also, your idea of what Chan is like is very ahistorical and orientalist. It has always been steeped in tradition, why do you think so many massive monasteries were built in the mountains? Not only that but each monastery was even themed around a specific sutra. If you think it is “free wheeling” you should read the reports in the Platform sutra. It’s clearly just as formalised and rigid as other Buddhist traditions. Chögyam Trungpa was literally a sexual abuser and an alcoholic by the way.
  - klik99 5y ago
    I know that about Trungpa - the drinking I don't mind but it's unforgivable to take advantage of people. That doesn't make his lectures or teachings any less valid. Shambhala was very important to me as a teenager so that influences my outlook. "Free wheeling" was me trying to be light-hearted. Many of the Zen stories of Chan involve a lot of confrontation which wouldn't be allowed in a Zen temple, less about what Chan is than the way Zen stories viewed them. To be honest I don't know much about Chan Buddhism except via Zen. I lived in China for 7 years and almost everyone I knew who was lay Buddhist was more into the iconography and didn't practice (I never visited any Buddhist temple). This attitude is pretty universal, most lay Christians I've met also don't practice compassion. I'd rather people practiced and didn't care about the iconography, if I had a choice. It's hard to unravel what about the core teachings was talking to the audience and which are tools for transmission. I expect you and I draw the line at different places. One thing I really agree with you on is stripping away the role of death in modern western buddhism. I've come to see Buddhism as preparation for death. Though honestly it's better to not to be preoccupied with it to be ready for it, and it will be far different than any story.
dvh1990 5y ago
The thing with Buddhism and perhaps any genuine spiritual practice is that the tools you acquire through working on yourself are powerful and useful, which is why secular people are drawn to yoga/meditation as "just" a practice. The problem here is that by removing the spiritual side, you get the all the tools but none of the restraint required to wield them gracefully.
- joeberon 5y ago
  One problem for those people is that the motivation is wrong unless there is right view. If you don’t realise samsara, and don’t realise that everything is on fire (see fire sermon) and wish to escape, then why are you practising? Unfortunately for a lot of secular people the answer is: because I had a crazy psychedelic trip and I just feel that something deeper is there that I must explore. And this causes all kinds of issues, because they have no idea how to separate any insight they might have had in their trip from straight up visuals or intense emotions. Further they are interested in the truth for the sake of the truth, and the Buddha explicitly said that such paths can lead to madness. It’s just very dangerous to go deep into Buddhist insight practise without having proper motivations or guidance.
GlennS 5y ago
Have you considered that maybe the only path to victory for Buddhism is by being flexible enough to rise above the bollucks? I'm not a Buddhist, but in its atheist forms (which aren't only Western) it seems like it's close enough to reality. If my choice is between abandoning religion entirely (because I'm a pedant who spends all my time with computers that won't accept anything unless it's technically correct), or having a think about it because you abandoned the literal truth of your literal texts in favour of some useful metaphors, then maybe I'll think about it? This is my counter-offer to Pascal's wager.
- joeberon 5y ago
  > Have you considered that maybe the only path to victory for Buddhism is by being flexible enough to rise above the bollucks? If it were true that such flexibility in doctrine were necessary for liberation, the Buddha would have taught it. I'm not interested in convincing you to take up Buddhism at all. You can if you want, it would be good for you, but I fundamentally don't care. The thing I do care about, is if you're gonna do it, don't go out and start pretending that Buddhism is something that it really isn't, especially if you have not done much research into it. Personally, I would prefer you don't get involved in Buddhism at all rather than try and draw some narrow metaphors out of Buddhist texts for use in your secular life.
  - GlennS 5y ago
    Our ideas are incompatible, as you have quickly identified. I wish you well, and I hope that your ambitions to defend traditional buddhist culture will help people. I hope you will take some solace that I hope to reduce others' suffering, even though I have no faith, and believe faith to be wishful thinking.
    - joeberon 5y ago
      Faith is a fundamental part of Buddhism. Even if you decided to become a Buddhist now, it is really unlikely you would be able to achieve significant progress, because we are in the Dharma ending age and only extremely high capacity individuals have the chance to liberation... If you are interested in Buddhism, your best chance at liberation is to put your faith in Amitabha's vow and hope for a rebirth in his Pure Land, which is basically the ultimate Buddhist training camp. Namo Amitabha Buddha!

itisit 5y ago

Sorry, this comes across as surprisingly dogmatic and sanctimonious for someone who identifies as Buddhist. Religion can be used in any way people fancy. It goes without saying, but there is no right/pure/true way to practice a religion, especially considering their imaginative basis.

joeberon 5y ago
Why would it be surprising? Buddhism is a pretty dogmatic religion. Literally the first of the Buddha's eight fold path is Right View, which means "you should believe in rebirth, believe in life after death, believe in karma, etc." He said that the first step is to have the correct dogmatic opinion. He actually said it is the forerunner to the path and by far the most important element. Once again, the idea that Buddhism would somehow be less dogmatic than other religions is a Western projection onto Buddhism. As far as religions go, Buddhism is pretty dogmatic and prescribes a very specific worldview. The difference is that it actually gives you the tools to verify those things if you wish, at least if you feel up for it.
- itisit 5y ago
  I think we mean different things when we use the words "Buddhism"and "dogmatic". I'll leave it at that.
  - joeberon 5y ago
    dogmatic: > inclined to lay down principles as undeniably true. dogma: > a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Buddhism: > a widespread Asian religion or philosophy, founded by Siddartha Gautama in north-eastern India in the 5th century BC. These are the definitions I'm using
  - joeberon 5y ago
    Amazingly you are demonstrating the exact racism and colonialist ignorance that I am arguing against in the original post. It is actively erasing traditional Buddhist voices, people who have actually studied Buddhism instead of projecting their idea of what Buddhism is onto it. Have you studied Buddhism? Which texts have you read? Which Buddhist concepts have you learnt about? Many people who profess to know what Buddhism really is truthfully answer: no, none, none. The best way is to just show someone a morally disagreeable teaching to progressives, like for example how the Buddha said that poor people are poor because in a previous life they stole, or that abortion will send you to hell, or that by letting women join the sangha the lifespan of the Dhamma is reduced from 1000 years to 500 years. Or just show them just how much rebirth and karma is in basically almost every sutta. That usually shocks them out of their absolute stupidity and ignorance.
    - bmh100 5y ago
      No one owns any religion, not even the Pope or the Dalai Lama. There is no "territory" to "colonize", and I haven't seen any evidence of racial superiority being a motivation. People develop their own belief systems over time. Did Gautama Buddha erase traditional Hindu voices when he spread his new religion in India? Was Gautama Buddha motivated by a feeling that his Nepal race was superior to the Hindu Indo-Aryans? Did Gautama Buddha seek to "colonize" the Indian subcontinent somehow?

klik99 5y ago

On the other hand, Buddhism has a rich tradition of interacting and fusing with local beliefs and creating totally new interpretaions, which then go on to fight with each other about who's right and who's got it backwards. I once saw a lecture by the Dalai Lama and where he spent an hour defending the purity of his lineage! Take for example the Zen koan: "Why did Bodhidharma come to China?" "The cypress in the courtyard." (referring to the tree growing in the center of their monastery.) Zen is a very Japanese version of Chen Buddhism, which was in turn a very Taoist free wheeling version of Buddhism from India, which used existing Indian mythology. Zen Buddhists is very formal and ritual focused, and their koans mostly being about a Chen Buddhist monk who spent his little money on alcohol in the nearby town rather than food. The Tibetan monk Chögyam Trungpa famously said Buddhism would come to the West as psychology. Who cares who's right and who's wrong, as long as it helps you see the cypress in the courtyard?

joeberon 5y ago
There was never a transmission of Buddhism that rejected all of the core teachings and doctrine. Why would you even want to call yourself a Buddhist if you reject Buddhism? It is just fashion to these people. It’s like being a communist who thinks private ownership of the means of production is good, it makes no sense. Also, your idea of what Chan is like is very ahistorical and orientalist. It has always been steeped in tradition, why do you think so many massive monasteries were built in the mountains? Not only that but each monastery was even themed around a specific sutra. If you think it is “free wheeling” you should read the reports in the Platform sutra. It’s clearly just as formalised and rigid as other Buddhist traditions. Chögyam Trungpa was literally a sexual abuser and an alcoholic by the way.
- klik99 5y ago
  I know that about Trungpa - the drinking I don't mind but it's unforgivable to take advantage of people. That doesn't make his lectures or teachings any less valid. Shambhala was very important to me as a teenager so that influences my outlook. "Free wheeling" was me trying to be light-hearted. Many of the Zen stories of Chan involve a lot of confrontation which wouldn't be allowed in a Zen temple, less about what Chan is than the way Zen stories viewed them. To be honest I don't know much about Chan Buddhism except via Zen. I lived in China for 7 years and almost everyone I knew who was lay Buddhist was more into the iconography and didn't practice (I never visited any Buddhist temple). This attitude is pretty universal, most lay Christians I've met also don't practice compassion. I'd rather people practiced and didn't care about the iconography, if I had a choice. It's hard to unravel what about the core teachings was talking to the audience and which are tools for transmission. I expect you and I draw the line at different places. One thing I really agree with you on is stripping away the role of death in modern western buddhism. I've come to see Buddhism as preparation for death. Though honestly it's better to not to be preoccupied with it to be ready for it, and it will be far different than any story.

dvh1990 5y ago

The thing with Buddhism and perhaps any genuine spiritual practice is that the tools you acquire through working on yourself are powerful and useful, which is why secular people are drawn to yoga/meditation as "just" a practice. The problem here is that by removing the spiritual side, you get the all the tools but none of the restraint required to wield them gracefully.

joeberon 5y ago
One problem for those people is that the motivation is wrong unless there is right view. If you don’t realise samsara, and don’t realise that everything is on fire (see fire sermon) and wish to escape, then why are you practising? Unfortunately for a lot of secular people the answer is: because I had a crazy psychedelic trip and I just feel that something deeper is there that I must explore. And this causes all kinds of issues, because they have no idea how to separate any insight they might have had in their trip from straight up visuals or intense emotions. Further they are interested in the truth for the sake of the truth, and the Buddha explicitly said that such paths can lead to madness. It’s just very dangerous to go deep into Buddhist insight practise without having proper motivations or guidance.

GlennS 5y ago

Have you considered that maybe the only path to victory for Buddhism is by being flexible enough to rise above the bollucks? I'm not a Buddhist, but in its atheist forms (which aren't only Western) it seems like it's close enough to reality. If my choice is between abandoning religion entirely (because I'm a pedant who spends all my time with computers that won't accept anything unless it's technically correct), or having a think about it because you abandoned the literal truth of your literal texts in favour of some useful metaphors, then maybe I'll think about it? This is my counter-offer to Pascal's wager.

joeberon 5y ago
> Have you considered that maybe the only path to victory for Buddhism is by being flexible enough to rise above the bollucks? If it were true that such flexibility in doctrine were necessary for liberation, the Buddha would have taught it. I'm not interested in convincing you to take up Buddhism at all. You can if you want, it would be good for you, but I fundamentally don't care. The thing I do care about, is if you're gonna do it, don't go out and start pretending that Buddhism is something that it really isn't, especially if you have not done much research into it. Personally, I would prefer you don't get involved in Buddhism at all rather than try and draw some narrow metaphors out of Buddhist texts for use in your secular life.
- GlennS 5y ago
  Our ideas are incompatible, as you have quickly identified. I wish you well, and I hope that your ambitions to defend traditional buddhist culture will help people. I hope you will take some solace that I hope to reduce others' suffering, even though I have no faith, and believe faith to be wishful thinking.
  - joeberon 5y ago
    Faith is a fundamental part of Buddhism. Even if you decided to become a Buddhist now, it is really unlikely you would be able to achieve significant progress, because we are in the Dharma ending age and only extremely high capacity individuals have the chance to liberation... If you are interested in Buddhism, your best chance at liberation is to put your faith in Amitabha's vow and hope for a rebirth in his Pure Land, which is basically the ultimate Buddhist training camp. Namo Amitabha Buddha!