41–50 of 423 posts
It is a stretch to say that Practicing meditation and Buddhist philosophy ( just like any other company culture) is bringing religion to the corporation.
True - frankly, I can find my God or my gods elsewhere (unless it is a religious organization!). It's the same as treating your job like a job and not a social club.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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...
The earliest Buddhist texts were written down centuries after the death of the Buddha. Buddhism started as an oral tradition.
How would these people react if they learned that the Buddha said his teachings were to last only 1000 years* if women were not included in the Sangha? And will only last 500 years after women were included?: > “But, Ānanda, if women had not obtained the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the Dhamma & Vinaya made known by the Tathāgata, the holy life would have lasted long, the true Dhamma would have…
Well, I don't think there's a conspiracy - accesstoinsight.org is actually an old site that is missing many suttas. It even links to a new updated website (e.g. from https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.053.th... ) and if you change the URL the sutta you mentioned is actually there: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN8_51.html . But regarding this, and other, anti-women references in the Pali ca…
I'm not sure if pointing out there are contradictions in the suttas helps the case.
In any case, whether through having contradictions or through rejection via cherry picking, modern Buddhists are eating the fruits of a poisoned tree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 arg…
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…
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.
How would these people react if they learned that the Buddha said his teachings were to last only 1000 years* if women were not included in the Sangha? And will only last 500 years after women were included?: > “But, Ānanda, if women had not obtained the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the Dhamma & Vinaya made known by the Tathāgata, the holy life would have lasted long, the true Dhamma would have…
Well, there are many things the Buddha said that they could not care less about. That would just be one more.
A religion is not about precisely what some founder said, but how it was adopted, intepreted, and developed (including what parts were given precedence and which were ignored).
Having met quite a few Buddhists (also my partner) who were raised by Buddhist parents, I'm yet to find a single one who meditates at all. That's not even that big of a part of "mindfulness".
After reading a monk's book (Essential Chan Buddhism by Guo Jun), I have a feeling it's all cargo-cultish in the west.
How would these people react if they learned that the Buddha said his teachings were to last only 1000 years* if women were not included in the Sangha? And will only last 500 years after women were included?: > “But, Ānanda, if women had not obtained the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the Dhamma & Vinaya made known by the Tathāgata, the holy life would have lasted long, the true Dhamma would have…
Buddha said it is super hard or impossible to achieve Nirvana or became Arahant after 1500-2000 years.
But if you never practice, you'll never achieve anything.
Even Buddha needs 4 Asaṃkhyeya to become a Buddha. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa%E1%B9%83khyeya