Letters to the Editor
-
The difference
I think a good point was made here, though it wasn't really brought to the foreground ( imho ). Buddhism is so easily trampled by the form and exoticism it offers to a lot of western people looking for something meaningful in their life. A good example is Zen Buddhism, what came to America was a sect practiced by a very small elite fraction of Japan. They're focus on form via tea and sitting practice/wearing black and keeping their space ocd clean was supposed to be mind-numbingly boring to the practitioner so their minds wouldn't have anything to do but focus on what lied beneath. A racing mind and breathing. But in America it's an exhilerating and empowering exotic ritual that gives them prestige and a way to forget their normal day to day life and basic awareness of suffering. This is not the point at all.
Buddhism is so simple, it's not grandiose, it's not important, and it sure as hell isn't looking to grow its numbers. People who think that are projecting their western ideologies on it.
An aside, suffering is not a bad thing in Buddhism.. to suffer means to withstand or sustain, it doesn't necessarily mean pain. Like so many things in Buddhism, it's isn't bad or good, but both, and Buddhism is one of the few things I've found that represents aspects of life eloquently, and accurately, it isn't a resolvable truth, but something to work with on a very real tangible day to day level.
I say this as a Dharma brat myself. There's a huge amount of 12-30 year old practitioners, I really don't know how this survey was conducted, but it's very inaccurate to my eyes. I'm not a nut, or a pro-buddhist, this is just a fact.
If you're interested in Buddhism check out "cutting through spiritual materialism". The name alone should speak volumes on the role Buddhism plays in a practitioners life.
-
Retail Religion is for dirty hippies with nothing better to do
That's how I feel about it. Now run along and worship a fire hydrant or something.
-
"Retail Religion"?
Is that a "Christian-love-thy-brother" speaking? Sorry, but you're way off the topic.
-
I'd like to make a point about the Buddhist laity...
I'd like to make a point about the Buddhist laity. I think it's important not to draw too many conclusions about the nature of the Buddhist laity in general from the Western Buddhist laity. We are by nature somewhat unusual in that we have, in most cases, either left the religion in which we were raised, or received no religious training at all. As Western Buddhists we are far better read, and in many cases, devote even more time to the practice of meditation than is true of those laymen who follow the Dharma in its ancient homelands. In places like Thailand and Burma that are associated with the Theravada (as is Dharma Punx) almost all children receive religious instruction in the Dharma, and apostasy is, practically unknown. Nevertheless, Buddhists aren't Buddhas, yet. Asian Buddhists know just as much about their religion as do Christians about theirs, which is sadly "not nearly enough," and most of them struggle to maintain the Precepts, as we ourselves struggle.
Buddhists of every persuasion are asked to obey the Five Precepts: do not kill; do not steal; do not lie; do not engage in sexual misconduct (commonly viewed in Asia as adultery); and do not drink alcohol or use other intoxicants. Remember that the Buddha was not a god. These are not commandments. They are a code, and a starting point, provided by the Buddha to help the laity to maintain a lifestyle that is conducive to following the path of the Dharma. Yet there are Buddhists who kill, steal, lie, commit adultery, and get drunk now and again. The Buddha understood human behavior. Personally, I think there is merit in Buddhists spending time where people gather together to unwind after a hard day's work. Buddhists should bring the Buddhadharma to where people are. We should not see ourselves as being cocooned and far away from all "that sort of thing." I'm not proposing prosyletizing so much as involvement in a socially active way.
I hesitate to mention this as I've described one sutra already in this discussion, but there is another sutra, "The Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti," which seems to bear upon some of the more controversial aspects of the Dharma Punx. Vimalakirti is a rich man, a pillar of society, and a Buddhist. Yet he spends his nights going to bars and gambling houses. He talks to all sorts of people. He is also a Bodhisattva, a being who has achieved great spiritual insight, who is approaching the realm of Buddhahood, but who has made the decision to remain in samsara, lifetime after lifetime, until all sentient beings have achieved enlightenment. His actions are self-less, motivated by a clear understanding of emptiness (Pali, no-self), compassion, and love. He spends his nights in such places because he is committed to helping everybody, not just those whose lives seem to conform to virtue. He takes on all comers. He makes a difference.
Perhaps that's why I find it sensible in its own way. After all, we are talking about the laity here. It is true that a Buddhist monk is forbidden to drink alcohol or use intoxicants, and must adhere to all of the many precepts of the Vinaya Pitaka, but it doesn't seem particularly odd to me that Buddhist lay members would associate in bars. Remember outreach should extend to everyone. Many Buddhist communities provide outreach to prisoners. They are following in the footsteps of Vimalakirti, but only the strongest should attempt this type of outreach. There are dangers.
*I apologize to all Therevadans for the obvious Mahayana references and overlay. It is the form of Buddhism I practice. I know far less about the Theravada, but I have great reverence for the Theravadan cultures which have preserved the teachings of the Buddha since the time of the First Council.
I also apologize for the gloss on emptiness and no-self, which is problematic, but still I think, to the point.
-
@ Ben Sen
"a Buddhist teacher isn't a "guru" meaning they don't represent "god" or some facsimile. That's called Hinduism."
O RLY?
You would have us believe that a Buddhist teacher is never what might be reasonably termed a "guru," and that a Hindu teacher/guru is always, necessarily, the "representative" of some god or other? You make me feel that Buddhists well-deserve the criticsm of those Christians who conceive of the Tathagatha himself as a god of some sort.
"Another is that Buddhism isn't exclusive. A person doesn't have to be just Buddhist. You can be an athiest-Buddhist, a Jewish Buddhist, an Episcopalian Fundamental Buddhist, a Greek Orthodox Buddhist, a Buddhist Buddhist..."
Me(/Not-Me), I'm a Hindu Buddhist -- or a Buddhist Hindu!