Buddhism and religion

[tiltbillings]

I want to focus on something:

not to build an identity from them...not to own them.

I don't think anyone here would argue that building an identity or trying to own is to be avoided. I suppose the question is: does having a religious approach necessitate building an identity or trying to own?

In a very real sense, whether we want to or not, until we are awakened, we are going to have to work with the "self." The Buddha recognized that. Morality, generosity, lovingkindness are all ways of working with the self, as is sati bhavana, leading to vipassana, It is all stuff used for the raft. In a very real sense we cannot let go of it without awakening, but we can cultivate a very different relationship to all of this that does not feed the grasping after, or the aversion.

[Dan74]

I might be missing the OP's point here but what I see him drawing attention to is an old saw and nothing outrageous and contrary to the Buddhadhamma.

Krishnamurti put it succinctly when he said that "Truth is a pathless land."

In Zen we have the "Don't know mind", "Beginner's mind" etc. And I recall our friend hrbeat7 from the grey forum articulating that very same point when he often emphasized that fundamentally we do not know. Once we get past the concepts and frameworks to the bare experience that is.

So religion or tradition, as something that is imposed on experience is just "putting horns on a snake" as they said in old China.

As far as having some structure to one's practice or a convenient label (when practical) as Ben put it, well that's just how we all do it. The point is to know it for what it is and not be deluded by it.

Or am I missing something (as it often happens)?

_/|\_

[tiltbillings]

As far as having some structure to one's practice or a convenient label (when practical) as Ben put it, well that's just how we all do it. The point is to know it for what it is and not be deluded by it.

Abosolutely.

Or am I missing something (as it often happens)?

Not a thing missed.

If the "non-religious" Buddhist is really doing the practice she is not doing anything different from her "religious" counter part who is really doing the practice, other than not calling what she is doing "religious."

[Dan74]

As far as having some structure to one's practice or a convenient label (when practical) as Ben put it, well that's just how we all do it. The point is to know it for what it is and not be deluded by it.

Abosolutely.

Or am I missing something (as it often happens)?

Not a thing missed.

Then I am puzzled as to why the OP met with so much resistance and even hostility.

If the "non-religious" Buddhist is really doing the practice she is not doing anything different from her "religious" counter part who is really doing the practice, other than not calling what she is doing "religious."

"Really doing the practice" includes not being deluded by labels and concepts such as "religious" and "non-religious," so I am not quite sure what you are saying here but I guess I agree!

My sense was that pink-trike was proposing to question traditions, dogma, beliefs and modes of thought that tend to go unquestioned if one has an attitude he calls "religious". Sounds like a good thing to me. We are all stuck in ruts of various sorts and questioning shines the light of awareness to areas of blind conformity and "autopilot" type functioning, fosters mindfulness and brings about insight to all sorts of "stuck" patterns.

Other people must've read it differently I guess..

_/|\_

[tiltbillings]

My sense was that pink-trike was proposing to question traditions, dogma, beliefs and modes of thought that tend to go unquestioned if one has an attitude he calls "religious".

And you can use all those things to good effect. Sometimes it is a balancing act, but always one must be willing to look a gift horse in the mouth.

[Peter]

Then I am puzzled as to why the OP met with so much resistance and even hostility.
...
My sense was that pink-trike was proposing to question traditions, dogma, beliefs and modes of thought that tend to go unquestioned if one has an attitude he calls "religious". Sounds like a good thing to me.

It is a good thing. But that's not what pink_trike was proposing. A religious attitude may sometimes accompany a resistance to questioning, one may even be a supporting condition for the other. But pink_trike is asserting that one must always lead to the other and that a religious attitude is always unwholesome and should be discouraged. This is what people are disagreeing with.

[Ngawang Drolma.]

I might be missing the OP's point here but what I see him drawing attention to is an old saw and nothing outrageous and contrary to the Buddhadhamma.

Krishnamurti put it succinctly when he said that "Truth is a pathless land."

In Zen we have the "Don't know mind", "Beginner's mind" etc. And I recall our friend hrbeat7 from the grey forum articulating that very same point when he often emphasized that fundamentally we do not know. Once we get past the concepts and frameworks to the bare experience that is.

So religion or tradition, as something that is imposed on experience is just "putting horns on a snake" as they said in old China.

As far as having some structure to one's practice or a convenient label (when practical) as Ben put it, well that's just how we all do it. The point is to know it for what it is and not be deluded by it.

Or am I missing something (as it often happens)?

_/|\_

This is exactly how I see it

[Ngawang Drolma.]

I think that there were a couple of reasons for this conversation going south.

For one, Pink Trike asked for people's personal experiences so he could better understand the religious mindset. People took time to answer a series of questions. Rather than responding to those answers, which were a sort of gift to him, he continued to make generalizations (some false) about people who identify with Buddhism as a religion. So of course, there was some reaction. Pink Trike, in all reality, was waiting for some negative energy to die out before replying to personal experiences. But it would have been better to not wait, and show that he was listening. In this sort of conversation, when you invite people with a different pov to share, it's important to reflect back some of what they've said and acknowledge it with respect before pointing out the faults in their thinking or continuing to repeat your different point of view.

Secondly, there are always problems with sweeping generalizations. We all like to think that we're that unique snowflake So to come to a message board where a particular religion is discussed and make sweeping generalizations about religion and people will evoke a predictable reaction. I doubt that Pink Trike's message was inherently bad. But the delivery was unfortunate. In whatever ways he might have been able to help people examine their own thinking, he sabotaged it with insensitivity. When I put some questions to him asking him to give feedback to those who have shared, he chose to not respond publicly. But I could see where things were heading and I was trying to help him with those questions!

Always, always remember whom you're talking to when you talk. It can help to avoid so much trouble.

[Peter]

I doubt that Pink Trike's message was inherently bad. But the delivery was unfortunate.

I am inclined to agree. On internet forums, however, those without the ability to moderate their own delivery end up being moderated by others.

[Ngawang Drolma.]

I doubt that Pink Trike's message was inherently bad. But the delivery was unfortunate.

I am inclined to agree. On internet forums, however, those without the ability to moderate their own delivery end up being moderated by others.

Yes, self-moderation is best but when that's not happening, the staff has to step in and keep the forum running smoothly.
I have seen forums with little or no moderation and it's usually disastrous.