9 ms·

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 goe

by 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?
      - joeberon 5y ago
        We have lots of resources over at /r/GoldenSwastika https://www.reddit.com/r/GoldenSwastika/wiki/misconceptions https://www.reddit.com/r/GoldenSwastika/wiki/misconceptions I will not stop until we've erased secular voices from Buddhist spaces
        JasonFruit 5y ago
        It sounds like you've defined "Buddhist spaces" in a way that's excluded secular voices pretty effectively. Why is it necessary to exclude secular voices from all "Buddhist" spaces, instead of just your Buddhist spaces?
        joeberon 5y ago
        Because it is directly oppressing Asian Buddhist voices in the west
        JasonFruit 5y ago
        I really am trying to understand here — I'm not Buddhist, but I'm interested in your reasoning. It looks to me like a large portion of American Buddhism is not really that interested in the traditional Asian form of Buddhism, but instead in a form that's heavily influenced by secular Jewish ideas. If people simply prefer that approach, but traditional Asian Buddhism is embraced in your spaces, isn't "erasing secular voices from Buddhist spaces" in general more oppressive, not less? After all, people are free to pursue your preferred strain of Buddhism if they prefer, just like you. Maybe I'm missing some pressures that you're not expressing.

by itisit 5y ago

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?
    - joeberon 5y ago
      We have lots of resources over at /r/GoldenSwastika https://www.reddit.com/r/GoldenSwastika/wiki/misconceptions https://www.reddit.com/r/GoldenSwastika/wiki/misconceptions I will not stop until we've erased secular voices from Buddhist spaces
      - JasonFruit 5y ago
        It sounds like you've defined "Buddhist spaces" in a way that's excluded secular voices pretty effectively. Why is it necessary to exclude secular voices from all "Buddhist" spaces, instead of just your Buddhist spaces?
        joeberon 5y ago
        Because it is directly oppressing Asian Buddhist voices in the west
        JasonFruit 5y ago
        I really am trying to understand here — I'm not Buddhist, but I'm interested in your reasoning. It looks to me like a large portion of American Buddhism is not really that interested in the traditional Asian form of Buddhism, but instead in a form that's heavily influenced by secular Jewish ideas. If people simply prefer that approach, but traditional Asian Buddhism is embraced in your spaces, isn't "erasing secular voices from Buddhist spaces" in general more oppressive, not less? After all, people are free to pursue your preferred strain of Buddhism if they prefer, just like you. Maybe I'm missing some pressures that you're not expressing.