buddhist lounge

[dharmacorps]

What desert do you mean? If it's a serious point, can you explain?

You've been around Buddhism for some 40 years, you have "practiced", but you're still not sure whether it's true or not -- and you see no problem with that???!

This is your problem, not Sam's. The dhamma isn't something to be "believed". It is an operating hypothesis. You keep looking for someone to convince you the dhamma is "true" (a la a judeo christian belief system, not the system of education/training the dhamma is) and miss the point altogether. Now you can resort to where you have been domineered and victimized again.

[mikenz66]

A vibrant lay community is of great benefit to the monastics they support, and, to be blunt, the monastic community would not endure without it. To that extent, it is deserving of much praise. The issue for the laity, however, is the assumption that this vibrancy, by default, also applies to their Dhamma practice, which is far from a guarantee.

It's certainly not a guarantee, but it's what gave me the opportunity to learn and practice. In my experience, a strong lay community and support for monastics rubs off into inspiration and support for lay people to practice. That a minority actually do that is a feature, not a bug, I think.


Mike

[salayatananirodha]

I've no experience with a real sense of community emerging out of purely Western groups.

Western-ized Buddhism is by its nature antisocial, specifically, anti-lineage. In the most generous interpretation, Westernized Buddhists are actually aiming to be sammasambuddhas. Such Buddhists are not interested in being merely followers of a buddha, no, they want to "know for themselves", they reserve themselves the right not to commit to a teaching unless it "fits their experience". They don't see themselves as part of a lineage; they want independence from the onset. They are competitors of a buddha, not followers of a buddha. People with such mentality don't form communities; groups or gatherings, maybe.

i both agree and disagree. i agree if you are saying western buddhists are often conceited and arrogant. which are not usually buddhists anyway but people who are influenced by what they consider buddhism. hermann hesse's novel siddhartha is a great example of competing with the buddha and also reducing his teachings to insignificant trifle
however, i do see a lot of breaking the spiritual mold set by ancestors who actually went against the buddha's teachings. the original teachings are free and accessible, but when you have entire vādas that explain them as being mere skillful means then you have the decline of the saddhamma.
remember the bodhisatta left each of his former teachers dissatisfied after first mastering their dhammas. so i support free inquiry. learn from those who have come before us, but at same time dhamma is timeless, inviting inspection, for the wise to realize themselves. nothing special about the defiled beings who became undefiled; the path works for everyone with the right set of causes

[salayatananirodha]

i'm looking for peers who also might have common interests so that we can not only be friends when talking about buddhism, which is usually very serious conversation, but also when that kind of talk is tiresome, since it is heavy.
some of you might think this is a fantasy. anyway, it's not something i think i'm going to achieve online. and so far only 12 people joined my group

[Radix]

What desert do you mean? If it's a serious point, can you explain?

You've been around Buddhism for some 40 years, you have "practiced", but you're still not sure whether it's true or not -- and you see no problem with that???!

This is your problem, not Sam's. The dhamma isn't something to be "believed". It is an operating hypothesis. You keep looking for someone to convince you the dhamma is "true" (a la a judeo christian belief system, not the system of education/training the dhamma is) and miss the point altogether. Now you can resort to where you have been domineered and victimized again.

O, sancta simplicitas!