Buddhism has found a new institutional home in the West: the corporation

I'm not sure what you think my position is as you seem to be arguing past me about something else completely.

My position is that I agree with a specific claim of the GP whose exact words were "A putative right that, 100 years from now, may well be seen alongside eugenics (alongside which it originated) as a mistaken wrong turn in the arc of progress."

The specific parts that I agree with are that:

1) Abortion and Eugenics are related and originated somewhat together, and

2) 100 years from now Abortion as a Right instead of as Legislation may be seen as a wrong turn much like Eugenics is now

In your first response to me you only addressed point #1 by stating erroneously that "Abortion has a millennium-long history that precedes eugenics". I clarified in my response that I meant "recent history" in which Abortion and Eugenics were very intertwined; however, I also provided a link to a Wikipedia page that starts out telling us that Plato in Ancient Greece was a proponent of Eugenics which shows that concept also has a millenium long history. I didn't quote that section, but instead, I quoted a section referring to the legendary tales of Sparta engaging in eugenics and late term abortion.

In your second response you failed to read the source link I provided detailing the history of Eugenics and pick up on your mistake; instead, you have gone down some strange argument disparaging Sparta and claiming I am cherry picking needles out of haystacks.

It doesn't matter that you view Sparta as a "barbaric slave city state" which "faded into obscurity" -- that doesn't change the fact that they are a millenia old example of eugenics and potentially very late term abortions.

Even if it did, none of this works to refute my position that possibly 100 years from now Abortion as a Right instead of as Legislation may be seen as a wrong turn much like Eugenics is now. The specific example I gave of Down Syndrome stands as a current issue that may turn into a future view of our current peoples as barbaric for aborting babies with Down Syndrome.

Do you have any arguments against that, or do you think I'm just anti-abortion in general and you're having a general argument with me about abortion? Because I am neither anti-abortion nor am I arguing against abortion.

> You do not need to be of a skin color, creed, gender or class to take refuge in the Buddha's teachings. The dharma is for all.

Agreed on all points! The Buddha's teachings are foundational to my world view, and I too am "from the West."

I do want to push back a little bit though (gently). Your coworker's critique is not necessarily wrong (even if they were making it from a place of ignorance). When I was a practicing Zen Buddhist, I saw a lot of teachers appropriating the dharma to sell their own teachings. Buddhist teachers consulting on the side to corporations (selling the teachings is inappropriate in Buddhism), starting companies to sell services, etc. The teachings were so far removed from the original ideas that they are incomprehensible. Vague spiritual statements, go with your gut morality, confusing dialog, going through the motions (rituals) was all that mattered. How could it be any other way? The West's values are counter to the teachings in just about everyway possible. It could not possibly be transmitted to the West without this kind of modification.

Cultural appropriation has happened with every culture Buddhism has encountered from it's origins in North India, through China and Southeast Asia, Korea and Japan, and now the West. We all have changed it somewhat and now claim what we have is more original than the original.

However, none of these adaptations can compare with the basic insight of the original teachings in my opinion.

I think it's folly to try to essentialize "the Buddha", when it's likely that Siddhartha Gautama never even existed.

My point in bringing up Ugra was to show that many/most sects of Buddhism have been predominantly focused on monasticism. In the sutras, advanced lay people are the exception, not the rule. And the surrounding societies understand that there's a difference. But in the west, lay people have higher expectations for spiritual attainment...

Jokes on the writer because Buddhism originated in India and evolved from Hinduism and spread as far as Southern Russia and Central Asia in addition to East Asia and Southeast Asia where it become popular. Ignorant people everywhere these days get to write articles who don't have basic history lessons. We learned this in high school also about Ashoka and how the Indian emperor spread Buddhism literally everywhere in the world. But whatever racists aren't known for their learning, understanding or intelligence.

Citation needed. Is it really far more people, or just a few more influential (mostly western or westernised and upper-class) people?