Tensions within Modern Buddhism, Real or Illusory?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Tensions within Modern Buddhism, Real or Illusory?

Postby Element » Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:56 am

christopher::: wrote:I think you missed my point, which was also Retro's earlier point, imo.

Chris,

I think you missed my point. When I and most Theravadins post on chatsite, we avoid the Mahayana forums like the plague (unless we have something supportive to offer). However, the Mahas take all kinds of liberties on the Theravada threads. Thus we smash them like the Buddha smashed those who disparaged him. Forum is the opportunity for discussion and straightforwardness. If the Mahas must ban us, so be it. We are free!

:coffee:

I do not see a recluse, or brahmin, a leader of a crowd, a teacher of a crowd or even one who acknowledges he is perfect and rightfully enlightened drawn into a dispute by me would not shiver tremble and sweat. Even a lifeless pillar drawn to a dispute by me would shiver and tremble, so what of a human being. As for you Aggivessana, there is sweat trickling down your forehead and some drops of sweat have pierced your over shawl and has fallen on the ground, on my body at the moment there is no sweat.

Saying that the Blessed One disclosed his golden hued body to that gathering. When this was said, Saccaka, the son of Nigantha became silent, confused, his form drooping, face turned down, unable to reply, sat down.

Then Dummukha the son of the Licchavis, saw Saccaka the son of Nigantha silent, confused, the form drooping, face turned down, unable to reply sitting. He said to the Blessed One: "Venerable sir, a comparison comes to me."

The Blessed One said: "Say it Dummukha."

Venerable sir, close to a village or hamlet, there’s a pond, in it a crab lives. Then a lot of boys and girls approach the pond, descend it and pull out the crab on to dry land. Whenever the crab puts out a limb, a boy or a girl would cut it and destroy it, with a stick or a stone. Thus the crab with all his limbs destroyed, is unable to descend to the pond as before. In the same manner, the Blessed One has cut off, broken, destroyed and smashed all the distortions of views and the vacillations of Saccaka the son of Nigantha and it is not possible that he should approach the Blessed One with the intention of a dispute.


MN 35
Element
 

Re: Tensions within Modern Buddhism, Real or Illusory?

Postby Element » Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:04 am

Peter wrote:My impression from the scriptures is the Buddha himself was not tolerant of wrong view, especially if someone was claiming that wrong view was taught by the Buddha himself.

Indeed. The Buddha did not look for dispute & debate. However, when misrepresented or attacked, he was straightforward in upholding his view.

"This Dhamma discourse on the Great Forty has been set rolling and cannot be stopped by any contemplative or priest or deva or Mara and Brahma or anyone at all in the world.

"If any priest or contemplative might think that this Great Forty Dhamma discourse should be censured & rejected, there are ten legitimate implications of his statement that would form grounds for censuring him here & now.

MN 117
Element
 

Re: Tensions within Modern Buddhism, Real or Illusory?

Postby stuka » Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:20 am

christopher::: wrote:It's very easy to find faults with other people's religious beliefs. These are called religions because people hold certain beliefs which can not be proven. There is always an element of faith. For all those outside that religion there will be elements of dis-belief.


The Buddha's transcendent teachings are not at all a matter of speculative view, blind faith, or "beliefs that cannot be proven".
User avatar
stuka
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

Re: Tensions within Modern Buddhism, Real or Illusory?

Postby christopher::: » Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:26 am

Dhammanando wrote:Hi Craig,

clw_uk wrote:Isnt everyone entertaining wrong view when they claim

"I am/we are better, I am/we are equal and I am/we are worse than"


No, this is māna, conceit. Conceit and wrong view both arise with greed-rooted cittas, but never in one and the same citta. A stream-entrant has no wrong view, but is still capable of falling into the conceit of being better than, equal to, or inferior to another.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu


Thank you for that, Bhikku. :goodpost: Very important to keep in mind.

I don't want to get into an argument here with everyone about differences in beliefs and views. Some take what was written in texts over 2000 years ago as literal fact. Other see it as mythic and cultural in nature, but containing essential gems of dharma that must be recognized and then (most importantly) put into practice.

I'm more of the practice-focused sort, which is why I am comfortable learning from (and spending time with) people of different religions and traditions. I tend to view each individual's religious beliefs as something personal, not really my business. It's how we behave toward one another that matters most, for me.

Belief is internal, within a person. Behavior is interpersonal, it effects others. If your beliefs make you a helpful, compassionate, generous human being than there is value in what you believe, imo. Can't say my approach to life is better then anyone else's but it helps me to get along with people.

So, I'd rather not get into a debate about some of these issues.

What I'm most interested in is how do i reduce/dissolve clinging and stress in this life? How can I be a good role model for my sons? How can I learn to live and practice the dharma more deeply so as to be of assistance to myself and fellow beings I come in contact with?

:heart:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
christopher:::
 
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Tensions within Modern Buddhism, Real or Illusory?

Postby Anders » Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:04 am

tiltbillings wrote:Anders Honore,

[EDIT: Discussion on E-Sangha removed - Retro.]

We each belong to our little group, often thinking it is better than those other little groups, but what do we do with those thoughts? The problem is that the Mahayana has triumphalism and supersessionism built into its structure, which feeds right into the baser feelings. Always a choice.


Restraint I guess? My view of the superiority of the Mahayana is terribly different from how I view Buddhism as a superior path to others. And I have no compelling desire to tell non-buddhists I think so, even much for Buddhists for that matter, their choice after all. Partly because I think it's often unkind and partly because I think anyone looking to become liberated is already undertaking such a hugely praiseworthy job, there's really no reason to speak even a slightly negative word of it. And besides, I'm more of the 'you're either click with it or you don't' persuasion, so listing good reason for why one is better than the other doesn't seem that useful to me anyway.-

clw_uk wrote:Isnt everyone entertaining wrong view when they claim

"I am/we are better, I am/we are equal and I am/we are worse than"


Not necessarily. I mean, I think we can all acknowledge without much conceit that Buddhism is a superior path to happiness than being a drug prostitute. The trouble is, thinking we can do that doesn't change the fact that it is very easy to be conceited about such things if we invest value into it (and debating such topics too much strikes me as a good way of generating such things).
User avatar
Anders
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Tensions within Modern Buddhism, Real or Illusory?

Postby stuka » Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:14 am

Anders Honore wrote:My view of the superiority of the Mahayana is terribly different from how I view Buddhism as a superior path to others.


That would be a function of "I- and My-Making", rather than of clear seeing and knowing. Clear seeing and knowing is not in need of totalitarian censorship and Argumentum Ad Baculum to present its truths.
User avatar
stuka
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

Re: Tensions within Modern Buddhism, Real or Illusory?

Postby Element » Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:27 am

Image
Element
 

Re: Tensions within Modern Buddhism, Real or Illusory?

Postby Anders » Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:42 am

stuka wrote:
Anders Honore wrote:My view of the superiority of the Mahayana is terribly different from how I view Buddhism as a superior path to others.


That would be a function of "I- and My-Making", rather than of clear seeing and knowing. Clear seeing and knowing is not in need of totalitarian censorship and Argumentum Ad Baculum to present its truths.


Your sniping aside, I didn't actually convey that very well at all, so thank you for giving me the opportunity to review that. What I meant to say was that although I personally think it's better to become a Buddha than an arhat, I think the two paths are much closer to each other than to any worldly paths, as they are both in the 'family of liberation', so to speak. But that how I act according to that isn't terribly different from how I act among non-buddhists and the like, which is to say I have no compelling desire to expound the superiority of Buddhism over other religions any more than I have to say Mahayana is the biggest and bestest among Buddhist paths. Path is a matter of choice and inclination moreso than correctness and rightness, as I see it.
User avatar
Anders
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Tensions within Modern Buddhism, Real or Illusory?

Postby christopher::: » Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:01 am

Anders Honore wrote: My view of the superiority of the Mahayana is terribly different from how I view Buddhism as a superior path to others. And I have no compelling desire to tell non-buddhists I think so, even much for Buddhists for that matter, their choice after all. Partly because I think it's often unkind and partly because I think anyone looking to become liberated is already undertaking such a hugely praiseworthy job, there's really no reason to speak even a slightly negative word of it. And besides, I'm more of the 'you're either click with it or you don't' persuasion, so listing good reason for why one is better than the other doesn't seem that useful to me anyway.-

clw_uk wrote:Isnt everyone entertaining wrong view when they claim

"I am/we are better, I am/we are equal and I am/we are worse than"


Not necessarily. I mean, I think we can all acknowledge without much conceit that Buddhism is a superior path to happiness than being a drug prostitute. The trouble is, thinking we can do that doesn't change the fact that it is very easy to be conceited about such things if we invest value into it (and debating such topics too much strikes me as a good way of generating such things).


Thanks for joining our discussion, Anders. Cannot say this view is "right" but I am of the opinion that the very thought processes which give rise to ideas of superiority or inferiority are unhelpful and potentially harmful for those who hold them. One may even be quite successful as a practitioner, and these kinds of thoughts are like seeds that can easily give rise to conceit, as Bikkhu Dhammanando described earlier.

Dhammanando wrote:This is māna, conceit. Conceit and wrong view both arise with greed-rooted cittas, but never in one and the same citta. A stream-entrant has no wrong view, but is still capable of falling into the conceit of being better than, equal to, or inferior to another.



Superior/Inferior creates a value judgement right away. This is just my opinion, but it seems like depth and skill of practice may be much more important then specifics of belief, in many cases. Take 12 individuals, 6 begin to follow different schools of Buddhism, 4 choose other religions, 2 follow no path. As an observer of people over time it seems to me that those who maintain basic codes of good behavior, self-discipline, gentleness and compassion often seem happier and more at peace.

In other words (again, just my opinion) the greatest differences in outcome often depend on how closely and completely people follow their chosen path, and less their choice in a particular path.

There are Mahayana Buddhists who sometimes lack compassion, what will the path do for them then, when they don't really understand how to follow it correctly? Then there are Christians (such as some Quakers and Amish I have met) who emphasize the compassionate actions of Jesus as being central. Their practice leads to a reduction of suffering for those they meet and a growing gentleness in their hearts.

I dunno. Some paths may be potentially more helpful then others, but in the end practice always trumps path, imo.

:heart:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
christopher:::
 
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Tensions within Modern Buddhism, Real or Illusory?

Postby Anders » Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:10 am

christopher::: wrote:
Anders Honore wrote:Thanks for joining our discussion, Anders. Cannot say this view is "right" but I am of the opinion that the very thought processes which give rise to ideas of superiority or inferiority are unhelpful and potentially harmful for those who hold them.


I think the deciding factor is *how* we hold them, which has a lot to do with that obscure (and online, often completely intangible) quality of how it feels to hold such a view. Going back to the example of the drug prostitute, say just such a person came up to you and said "I did what I did because in one way or another, I thought this would make me happy. Now I am wondering if there exists a better way to accomplish this." Would you withhold from said person the possibility to not do drugs, live a wholesome life and such as a better way to be happy? Is there any necessary conceit in suggesting a wholesome lifestyle as a better option?

On the other hand, if you had spent a significant amount of time debating the respective merits of drug-addicted prostitution vs. clean living and had repeatedly come up against arguments saying that clean living is inferior to the alternative, you might find yourself differently vested in this.

I am not commenting on whether one school really is better than the other or anything of the sort here, just that I don't think the thought itself that there are paths that are better than others is inherently conceited (or if it is, then it is not unskilfully so). How could we justify our own choice of path if such a thought had never occurred to us in one way or another? Imo, the deciding factor is tightly we hold it, which carries with it a certain inability to accept others going what way they want to wholeheartedly.

For me, my hope is that all paths, be it the path of wicked crime or complete liberation, turn out to be ultimately as beneficial for everyone as circumstances may allow for them at such a point in time. But I also have to temper that with the acknowledgement that this might very well not be the case, lest it become a kind of 'stupid compassion'. On the other hand, I think such intents is the way to temper our discriminations of different paths and put them in the right perspective.
User avatar
Anders
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Tensions within Modern Buddhism, Real or Illusory?

Postby Anders » Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:27 am

christopher::: wrote:This is just my opinion, but it seems like depth and skill of practice may be much more important then specifics of belief, in many cases. Take 12 individuals, 6 begin to follow different schools of Buddhism, 4 choose other religions, 2 follow no path. As an observer of people over time it seems to me that those who maintain basic codes of good behavior, self-discipline, gentleness and compassion often seem happier and more at peace.

In other words (again, just my opinion) the greatest differences in outcome often depend on how closely and completely people follow their chosen path, and less their choice in a particular path.


I think that's a good point. And it's worth bearing in mind that all the 'profound teachings' of Buddhism, such as emptiness, not-self and such, aren't really profound at all when they are not safely enshrined in goodwill, harmlessness, meditation and right action, as there's no profound transformation to speak of in such cases from it. So I do agree that there's a certain order of 'first things first' to this, before there's even a point to discuss the respective higher merits of different paths.

Also tangled in with this though, is a matter of perception. For example, there is a certain element of angels dancing on a pin to discussing whether arhats can live on after death or not. I mean, any way we look at it, we'll probably find out when we get there, won't we? But I can see debating it as a bit of good clean fun, exploring various suspicions about what is possible down the road. Maybe it's because I see it as just that it doesn't bother me much where others might see sectarian bickering. And who owns the discord in such a case?
User avatar
Anders
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Tensions within Modern Buddhism, Real or Illusory?

Postby christopher::: » Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:05 pm

I think some of this is just choosing words carefully when we communicate. When gathered with sisters and brothers from different traditions we need to be very careful with words like "better" or "superior" because of the meaning they convey to others. Not in relation to being a drug addict vs. practicing clean living but definitely when discussing Mahayana beliefs with Theravadan Buddhists, when comparing Zen and Dzogchen, or Buddhas vs. Arhats.

If we make such statements among others they can offend. It's not only how we hold views in our mind, but also how we communicate them that matters, imo. This was a big problem i think over at another forum, sometimes. It's something to be mindful of i think, that's all.

I also like the view expressed by a number of Zen and Theravadan teachers, that we need to be very careful about any goals we hold for attaining something or becoming something in the distant future. Those ideas themselves can become a barrier to practice, if you hold a gaining concept too strongly. They tend to help solidify one's conceptions of a self, as a doer and becomer in this world. The Soto Zen teacher Shunryu Suzuki talked about this quite a bit.

Ajahn Chah expressed it this way:

"To explain it in a simple way, sometimes you will be an omniscient (sabbaññū) Buddha; sometimes you will be a Pacceka. It depends on conditions.

Talking about these kinds of beings is talking about the mind. It's not that one is born a Pacceka. This is what's called ''explanation by personification of states of mind'' (puggalādhitthāna). Being a Pacceka, one abides indifferently and doesn't teach. Not much benefit comes from that. But when someone is able to teach others, then they are manifesting as an omniscient Buddha.

These are only metaphors.

Don't be anything! Don't be anything at all! Being a Buddha is a burden. Being a Pacceka is a burden. Just don't desire to be. ''I am the monk Sumedho,'' ''I am the monk Ānando''... That way is suffering, believing that you really exist thus. ''Sumedho'' is merely a convention. Do you understand?

If you believe you really exist, that brings suffering. If there is Sumedho, then when someone criticizes you, Sumedho gets angry. Ānando gets angry. That's what happens if you hold these things as real. Ānando and Sumedho get involved and are ready to fight. If there is no Ānando or no Sumedho, then there's no one there - no one to answer the telephone. Ring ring - nobody picks it up. You don't become anything. No one is being anything, and there is no suffering.

If we believe ourselves to be something or someone, then every time the phone rings, we pick it up and get involved. How can we free ourselves of this? We have to look at it clearly and develop wisdom, so that there is no Ānando or no Sumedho to pick up the telephone. If you are Ānando or Sumedho and you answer the telephone, you will get yourself involved in suffering. So don't be Sumedho. Don't be Ānando. Just recognize that these names are on the level of convention.

If someone calls you good, don't be that. Don't think, ''I am good.'' If someone says you are bad, don't think, ''I'm bad.'' Don't try to be anything. Know what is taking place. But then don't attach to the knowledge either."


source: http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books/Ajahn_Chah_Even_One_Word_Is_Enough.htm


:buddha1:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
christopher:::
 
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Tensions within Modern Buddhism, Real or Illusory?

Postby Anders » Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:35 pm

christopher::: wrote:Myself, i like the view expressed by a number of Zen and Theravadan teachers, that we need to be very careful about any goals we hold for attaining something or becoming something. Those ideas themselves can become a barrier, if you hold a gaining concept too strongly. The Soto Zen teacher Shunryu Suzuki talked about this quite a bit.

Ajahn Chah expressed it this way:

"To explain it in a simple way, sometimes you will be an omniscient (sabbaññū) Buddha; sometimes you will be a Pacceka. It depends on conditions.


:) Nice quote. A teacher of mine, in talking about ending up in bad places, once said something to the effect of: 'if you come back as an earthworm, that's ok. you can spread dharma to the earthworms. Not everything good has to be in the highest places', which is a nice perspective to keep in mind in all the talk of 'what is the best way' (which is basically what sectarian disputes are about), I think.

I was just reading a Mahayana sutra about Manjushri's prediction of Buddhahood the other day, where the Buddha mentions to the crowd that manjushri hasn't attained buddhahood because of strong past vows he is still working on. The assembly becomes all excited and asks Manjushri what are his vows, when will he attain supreme enlightenment, how does he aid living beings, what will his buddhafield be like etc? Manjushri rips the questioner inside and out, telling him to go ask that of someone who has a supreme enlightenment to attain, who apprehends living beings, who has attainments to be sought and so forth, insisting on each point how for bodhisattvas who train in emptiness there is nothing to be sought or apprehended, so why is he asking manjushri these silly questions? After a while of battering the poor bodhisattva asking these questions like this, he finally relents and answers the questions in a literal fashion. It's a doubleedged to balance, I guess. I think the bold parts of your quote express it well:

If we believe ourselves to be something or someone, then every time the phone rings, we pick it up and get involved. How can we free ourselves of this? We have to look at it clearly and develop wisdom, so that there is no Ānando or no Sumedho to pick up the telephone. If you are Ānando or Sumedho and you answer the telephone, you will get yourself involved in suffering. So don't be Sumedho. Don't be Ānando. Just recognize that these names are on the level of convention.

If someone calls you good, don't be that. Don't think, ''I am good.'' If someone says you are bad, don't think, ''I'm bad.'' Don't try to be anything. Know what is taking place. But then don't attach to the knowledge either."
User avatar
Anders
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Tensions within Modern Buddhism, Real or Illusory?

Postby christopher::: » Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:54 pm

Right!

The other part which seems to be key, imo:

"Don't be anything! Don't be anything at all! Being a Buddha is a burden. Being a Pacceka is a burden. Just don't desire to be. ''I am the monk Sumedho,'' ''I am the monk Ānando''... That way is suffering, believing that you really exist thus. ''Sumedho'' is merely a convention. Do you understand?

If you believe you really exist, that brings suffering. If there is Sumedho, then when someone criticizes you, Sumedho gets angry. Ānando gets angry. That's what happens if you hold these things as real. Ānando and Sumedho get involved and are ready to fight. If there is no Ānando or no Sumedho, then there's no one there - no one to answer the telephone. Ring ring - nobody picks it up. You don't become anything. No one is being anything, and there is no suffering.


:meditate: :jedi:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
christopher:::
 
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Tensions within Modern Buddhism, Real or Illusory?

Postby kc2dpt » Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:24 pm

christopher::: wrote:I am of the opinion that the very thought processes which give rise to ideas of superiority or inferiority are unhelpful and potentially harmful for those who hold them. One may even be quite successful as a practitioner, and these kinds of thoughts are like seeds that can easily give rise to conceit, as Bikkhu Dhammanando described earlier.
Dhammanando wrote:"I am/we are better, I am/we are equal and I am/we are worse than"
This is māna, conceit.

The "conceit" part is the "I am", I think. Consider that in many places in the suttas the Buddha talks of superiority and inferiority. For example:

Of all the paths the Eightfold Path is the best;
of all the truths the Four Noble Truths are the best;
of all things passionlessness is the best;
of men the Seeing One (the Buddha) is the best.
- Dhp 273
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
kc2dpt
 
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Tensions within Modern Buddhism, Real or Illusory?

Postby bukowski » Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:08 pm

Hi Chris, all. :smile:

I don't feel tension in modern Buddhism. However, i often feel tension within people. I think we are talking about the problematic behaviour of people here, rather than issues between differing schools. I think it's easy to use a school, a faith, a belief, a colour, a race etc, to hide behind, but really we are all responsible for how we treat people, and how we respond to the treatment we receive from others.

All of us here know what we are really talking about, in my honest opinion. At one time few options were available for the practicing Buddhist who wished to share their experiences with, and learn from other practicng Buddhists online. Now we have many options, this lovely site included, moderated with compassion and equanimity, that we can visit and share with others.

Their will be times, even on this site when people will have the liberty of posting removed for whatever reason, and lines will be drawn and people will be upset. I know this from my own (limited) experience as a mod.

A compassionate community needs rules. How those rules are made, and how they are carried out is the mark of the compassion and wisdom of those who make and enforce them.

So again, it all comes back to people. Buddhism, like so many other things, makes a fine excuse for a lot of selfish action, but ultimately our intention is our own, and the karma it generates is ours to live through.

Maybe we can learn from some of this stuff and make this as suportive a community as i think it can be, judging by the high regard that i hold for those who started it, and moderate it. Perhaps we can own our words and deeds without using our faith and our beliefs to justify our actions and intentions.

Just some thoughts.

Metta, bukowski. :reading:
bukowski
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:52 pm
Location: U.K.

Re: Tensions within Modern Buddhism, Real or Illusory?

Postby Individual » Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:14 pm

Rather than seeing a bunch of different sects, with different views, I think it is clearer to look at their foundation: the three unwholesome roots.

The three unwholesome roots are like a fungus which makes its way into almost every mind, every sect, while hiding itself with a thousand different masks and illusory differentiated appearances... But in each case, it can be traced back to the same unwholesome roots.

And in every case, in every mind, there is the luminous mind, everywhere there is Nibbana, which can sweep these unwholesome roots away.

So, I would say that, to the degree that the unwholesome roots take hold in Modern Buddhism, there will be tension. To the degree that they are capable of being swept away and do not reflect the luminous mind, the Buddha, the Dhamma, or the noble Arahants, they are illusory.

And so, there often appear to be doctrinal differences -- and sometimes, these doctrinal differences seem to be very real. But in many of these cases, it might just be something more complicated than "One side representing true dharma, the other side misrepresenting true dharma," but instead involves a complex array of different people, on both sides, some with high levels of realization with genuine disagreements, some with high levels of realization with superficial disagreement, and likewise for those with low levels of realization.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Tensions within Modern Buddhism, Real or Illusory?

Postby LisaMann » Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:23 am

Well, I am feeling some tension, although at it's core, it is illusory.

I just found out that I got banned from... that one place. No explanation, nothing. Ouch. :cry: IRL. It's like being kicked out of a family, grumpy uncles and all.
User avatar
LisaMann
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:50 am

Re: Tensions within Modern Buddhism, Real or Illusory?

Postby Element » Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:29 am

Chat site should be challenging. It is good to be more than a place for emotional catharsis. :coffee:
Element
 

Re: Tensions within Modern Buddhism, Real or Illusory?

Postby LisaMann » Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:36 am

Element wrote:Chat site should be challenging. It is good to be more than a place for emotional catharsis. :coffee:


Yeah, but it shouldn't be a flame-fest either.
User avatar
LisaMann
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:50 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anagarika, Bing [Bot], binocular, fivebells, Shaswata_Panja and 15 guests