4 ms·

As someone who has spend long time meditating in Buddhist monasteries, I would say they don't care. Sutras are just teachings. You may learn from them and valu

by nabla9 4y ago

As someone who has spend long time meditating in Buddhist monasteries, I would say they don't care. Sutras are just teachings. You may learn from them and value them, but Buddhists are not "people of the book" like Abrahamic religions are. You don't have to parse everything Buddha and ponder it endlessly. Sometimes he just wondered about the future of the discipline. He also changed his mind when others presented arguments, just like in this case. Buddhism as a religion is considered just a vehicle for some truth that people can discover, not the goal itself. Requiring perfect gym to practice is not for people who really want to train.

omarfarooq 4y ago
> but Buddhists are not "people of the book" like Abrahamic religions are. You mean modern Buddhists aren't. Early Muslims considered the Buddhists they encountered as "people of the book." Source: https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2018/14/shsconf_ichss2018_04001.pdf https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2018/14...
- nabla9 4y ago
  The earliest Buddhist texts were written down centuries after the death of the Buddha. Buddhism started as an oral tradition.
  - thx2099100 4y ago
    so did islam.
    - omarfarooq 4y ago
      Correct, Quran means lit. recitation.
      - JetAlone 4y ago
        For that matter, the New Testament wasn't written until long after the life of Jesus, the canon wasn't established until long after many oral traditions were, and some of Old Testament canon the status of "deuterocanon/apocrypha" has been controversial. Religions start with key important figures, events and practices long before they get encoded as text. The only one I can think of off the top of my head that might have gone somewhat in the reverse direction was L. Ron Hubbard writing Dianetics and other books to develop a schema and theory for psychological healing before he officially started Scientology. But I don't know all the details about early Scientology so it's hard to say precisely how much was pre-encoded there. I've heard rumours that Hubbard was involved in Freemasonry before starting Scientology so if it's true, it's likely that some of his experiences in it shaped his writings. I also heard that Paul Twitchell, founder of a lesser-known group called "Eckankar" spent some of his earlier days in Scientology. But I digress. When you strip practices away from dogma in an attempt to further enrich corporations, it's almost like trying to start over with the practices borrowed from some past heritage, the corporation's leadership as the key figures who give advice or select practice consultants to confer with, and with some milestone of success as the promised "awakening event". It definitely runs the risk of turning the corporation into a personality cult where your boss directly or indirectly tells you how to reach a spiritual objective... Of making them money.
- dym_sh 4y ago
  was it b/c muslims also lived by the book and buddhists just retaliated in kind?
- coldtea 4y ago
  I don't think parent meant that Buddhist's aren't "people of the book" with the muslim meaning of the term. Given the context, he probably meant they aren't "by the book", not strict about their scripture.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    Buddhists are not "people of the book" because the Buddha was not a God, and didn't have prophetic access to the teachings of a God. His views on karma and rebirth, for example, were those of the society he sprang from; they were not the result of transcendent insight. He was not some kind of perfect being. Buddha became more God-like as the centuries passed; some Prajnaparamita and later texts describe him as being the height of seven palm trees, for example. But he's never been considered infallible, like a prophet.
    - nprateem 4y ago
      > they were not the result of transcendent insight That's exactly his selling point, that through deep meditation he had profound insights, regarding impermanance and no-self. But yeah, that was his own realisation, not just some words some god said to him that are supposed to be infallible.
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  Shahrastani, whose book Kitab al milal wan nihal is sitting in front of me right now, had a lot of things to report about Buddhists, and not only that verdict. Have you read him? Furthermore, Biruni on this subject alone is notoriously unreliable, relying on secondhand sources.
  - riskneutral 4y ago
    > had a lot of things to report about Buddhists Would love to know more ...
    - selimthegrim 4y ago
      Best to find the Bruce Lawrence translation - in short Muslims had varying opinions of them based on different understandings
mudita 4y ago
My own personal experience differed from yours. In a retreat in Burma I observed a lot of traditions, which made it very clear that men had a higher standing than women. When forming a line for going to lunch, the monks were first, then the laymen, then the nuns and then the laywomen; only the monks ate on a raised platform, but not the nuns or laypeople etc. This was not just old books, which nobody cared about, but pervasive everyday practice. I very much believe that you had different experience and am happy for it. There’s a lot of Buddhists and different traditions and it’s very difficult to generalise. I myself also practiced in - more western - communities, where there was no noticeable gender imbalance. But I am also sure, that there are Buddhist traditions and communities, which are sexist.
- nabla9 4y ago
  The reason why you saw what you saw is twofold. 1) You did not see nuns. Formal lineage of nuns died in Theravada lineage hundreds of years ago. Women were wearing white robes right? Those are the robes of novices. You need 5? female nuns to ordain a new nun. Sri Lankan monk, Bhante Henepola Gunaratana (aka Bhante G) asked Tibetan nuns so bootstrap the tradition in Theravada, but it's just starting and there is resistance. 2) Women are considered less than men in Asian cultures (equality of sexes is new in the West too). Religions are not separate from the culture around them. >But I am also sure, that there are Buddhist traditions and communities, which are sexist. Yes there are and that is to be expected. (Unless you believe that Buddhism makes people somehow perfect. "After the Ecstasy, the Laundry: How the Heart Grows Wise on the Spiritual Path" by Jack Kornfield is a good book that explains how full of shit Buddhists are no matter how much they train. Buddhism is not about creating perfect world in this world or in afterlife.
  - michaelt 4y ago
    > Women are considered less than men in Asian cultures (equality of sexes is new in the West too). Religions are not separate from the culture around them. Sure - but aren't monks and priests also supposed to be a model, demonstrating what a really dedicated, pious follower of the religion should look like?

by nabla9 4y ago

omarfarooq 4y ago

> but Buddhists are not "people of the book" like Abrahamic religions are. You mean modern Buddhists aren't. Early Muslims considered the Buddhists they encountered as "people of the book." Source: https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2018/14/shsconf_ichss2018_04001.pdf https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2018/14...

nabla9 4y ago
The earliest Buddhist texts were written down centuries after the death of the Buddha. Buddhism started as an oral tradition.
- thx2099100 4y ago
  so did islam.
  - omarfarooq 4y ago
    Correct, Quran means lit. recitation.
    - JetAlone 4y ago
      For that matter, the New Testament wasn't written until long after the life of Jesus, the canon wasn't established until long after many oral traditions were, and some of Old Testament canon the status of "deuterocanon/apocrypha" has been controversial. Religions start with key important figures, events and practices long before they get encoded as text. The only one I can think of off the top of my head that might have gone somewhat in the reverse direction was L. Ron Hubbard writing Dianetics and other books to develop a schema and theory for psychological healing before he officially started Scientology. But I don't know all the details about early Scientology so it's hard to say precisely how much was pre-encoded there. I've heard rumours that Hubbard was involved in Freemasonry before starting Scientology so if it's true, it's likely that some of his experiences in it shaped his writings. I also heard that Paul Twitchell, founder of a lesser-known group called "Eckankar" spent some of his earlier days in Scientology. But I digress. When you strip practices away from dogma in an attempt to further enrich corporations, it's almost like trying to start over with the practices borrowed from some past heritage, the corporation's leadership as the key figures who give advice or select practice consultants to confer with, and with some milestone of success as the promised "awakening event". It definitely runs the risk of turning the corporation into a personality cult where your boss directly or indirectly tells you how to reach a spiritual objective... Of making them money.
dym_sh 4y ago
was it b/c muslims also lived by the book and buddhists just retaliated in kind?
coldtea 4y ago
I don't think parent meant that Buddhist's aren't "people of the book" with the muslim meaning of the term. Given the context, he probably meant they aren't "by the book", not strict about their scripture.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  Buddhists are not "people of the book" because the Buddha was not a God, and didn't have prophetic access to the teachings of a God. His views on karma and rebirth, for example, were those of the society he sprang from; they were not the result of transcendent insight. He was not some kind of perfect being. Buddha became more God-like as the centuries passed; some Prajnaparamita and later texts describe him as being the height of seven palm trees, for example. But he's never been considered infallible, like a prophet.
  - nprateem 4y ago
    > they were not the result of transcendent insight That's exactly his selling point, that through deep meditation he had profound insights, regarding impermanance and no-self. But yeah, that was his own realisation, not just some words some god said to him that are supposed to be infallible.
selimthegrim 4y ago
Shahrastani, whose book Kitab al milal wan nihal is sitting in front of me right now, had a lot of things to report about Buddhists, and not only that verdict. Have you read him? Furthermore, Biruni on this subject alone is notoriously unreliable, relying on secondhand sources.
- riskneutral 4y ago
  > had a lot of things to report about Buddhists Would love to know more ...
  - selimthegrim 4y ago
    Best to find the Bruce Lawrence translation - in short Muslims had varying opinions of them based on different understandings

mudita 4y ago

My own personal experience differed from yours. In a retreat in Burma I observed a lot of traditions, which made it very clear that men had a higher standing than women. When forming a line for going to lunch, the monks were first, then the laymen, then the nuns and then the laywomen; only the monks ate on a raised platform, but not the nuns or laypeople etc. This was not just old books, which nobody cared about, but pervasive everyday practice. I very much believe that you had different experience and am happy for it. There’s a lot of Buddhists and different traditions and it’s very difficult to generalise. I myself also practiced in - more western - communities, where there was no noticeable gender imbalance. But I am also sure, that there are Buddhist traditions and communities, which are sexist.

nabla9 4y ago
The reason why you saw what you saw is twofold. 1) You did not see nuns. Formal lineage of nuns died in Theravada lineage hundreds of years ago. Women were wearing white robes right? Those are the robes of novices. You need 5? female nuns to ordain a new nun. Sri Lankan monk, Bhante Henepola Gunaratana (aka Bhante G) asked Tibetan nuns so bootstrap the tradition in Theravada, but it's just starting and there is resistance. 2) Women are considered less than men in Asian cultures (equality of sexes is new in the West too). Religions are not separate from the culture around them. >But I am also sure, that there are Buddhist traditions and communities, which are sexist. Yes there are and that is to be expected. (Unless you believe that Buddhism makes people somehow perfect. "After the Ecstasy, the Laundry: How the Heart Grows Wise on the Spiritual Path" by Jack Kornfield is a good book that explains how full of shit Buddhists are no matter how much they train. Buddhism is not about creating perfect world in this world or in afterlife.
- michaelt 4y ago
  > Women are considered less than men in Asian cultures (equality of sexes is new in the West too). Religions are not separate from the culture around them. Sure - but aren't monks and priests also supposed to be a model, demonstrating what a really dedicated, pious follower of the religion should look like?