61–70 of 423 posts
I get a little tired of Western adoption of values or ideas from non-Western cultures being called "appropriation".
Because you know what happens here is not a big deal. You will get somehow rewarded for your hardships after you kick the bucket.
Also it’s a great tool to rally people to a cause. And can generate cash!
Best idea ever.
Ye cannot serve Buddha and mammon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This issue at hand here is not limited to the question of women in the sangha, but of the Teacher's claims as to the potency and longevity of his Teachings. 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.
See also, Digha Nikaya 16, the Mahā Parinibbāna Sutta, one of the foremost suttas detailing the Buddha's awakening, in which he refuses to achieve full enlightenment in the presence of Mara unless his monks and nuns, male and female lay followers were fully established in the dhamma.
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…
For Hindus, Buddha was just one of the 10 avatars of Vishnu and he came for a time and purpose. It was never meant to be a separate religion but just took Hindu teachings on meditation and enlightenment and got adapted into another "ism". All the core teachings lie in Hindu scriptures, including Yoga, Meditation etc.
For Hindus, claiming everything in the subcontinent as their own seems like a favorite passtime. Jainism, Buddhism are not part of Hinduism and never were.
Second, no person is obliged to adhere to a standard defined hundreds of years ago (or otherwise). Buddhism, and all cultures, are allowed to evolve according to our better understanding of science, the universe, ourselves, even philosophy, etc.. And also to fit well into people's lives and local culture. Most of the spirit of the Buddha is that of finding the truth and achieving enlightenment -- being too stuck to his every word is contrary to the spirit of his teachings. Secularity (I am a secular Buddhist) wasn't even too well defined in the time of Buddha I think.
If you don't want to learn anything about Buddhism, only the basics of meditation, no one should stop you. I think most teachings are very beautiful and well worthy of study, but that's ultimately up to yourself.
If you want to learn more, I thoroughly recommend masters like Thich Nhat Hanh and reading (perhaps commentated) Buddha's original thoughts (I believe Dhammapada summarizes many of them).
I always find it weird how western "promoters" of Buddhism are so gung-ho on the meditation part, pretty much disregarding everything else. 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…
When Western imperial forces began to systematically take over regions of Asia for trade, the Buddhist monks in areas such as Burma/Myanmar felt that this was the second time their tradition would die out, and sought to preserve the parts that they felt were essential. In their case, it was the path of vipassana meditation, and though Buddhism didn't die out there, from then on it was strongly influenced by this more refined, less faith-driven teaching.
So when Westerners started to go over to these regions of Asia, this is what they were taught, not the religious faith of the local lay practitioners, which existed mainly to support the monks in their vipassana.
Vipassana meditation is mindfulness practice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so did islam.
Correct, Quran means lit. recitation.
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.
I’m a Catholic (so I have … my own view on Buddhism) but I lived in SEA for a long time. I want to say, this article is very good. The buddhism as practiced in the west has very little to do with actual practices in the east. But, Buddhism is also very confusing, and it’s hard to say “what is the true buddhism” (mahayana, therevada, vajrayana and zen buddhism in Japan (formally mahayana) are all very different)
> The buddhism as practiced in the west has very little to do with actual practices in the east Really it depends on your specific sect. If you join a Pure Land sect in the west I think that it is generally quite similar to the east