Buddhism: the untold story

Banbh

This is a thread I started on the Atheism forum, having seen the reports from Burma regarding the activities of the buddhists there. I was challenged to post it here as well, so here it is:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-p...339684455.html

Buddhism is sometimes regarded, in Europe anyway, as a more tolerant religion, a religion of peaceful meditation and begging baldy monks.
But like all organisations seeking control of society it has its darker side. The above link is to the recent ethnic-cleansing movement in Burma, orchestrated by the Buddhist church.
Buddhism can also take credit for the attempted extermination of the Tamils of Sri Lanka and, let us not forget, the first suicide bombers of modern warfare, the kamikazi pilots, many of whom went to their deaths with the blessing of Buddha.

joseph brand

I just did a search for 'Rohingya' in Google images. There are some graphic photos of corpses. NSFW.

You mentioned suicide bombers. I'm sure I've seen some buddhist monks set themselves alight. Human torches. It differs from christianity in that the burning is not self inflicted. (Burnt at the stake)

Undergod

Banbh wrote: »

This is a thread I started on the Atheism forum, having seen the reports from Burma regarding the activities of the buddhists there. I was challenged to post it here as well, so here it is:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-p...339684455.html

Buddhism is sometimes regarded, in Europe anyway, as a more tolerant religion, a religion of peaceful meditation and begging baldy monks.
But like all organisations seeking control of society it has its darker side. The above link is to the recent ethnic-cleansing movement in Burma, orchestrated by the Buddhist church.
Buddhism can also take credit for the attempted extermination of the Tamils of Sri Lanka and, let us not forget, the first suicide bombers of modern warfare, the kamikazi pilots, many of whom went to their deaths with the blessing of Buddha.

I may well be wrong, but it doesn't seem accurate to refer to Buddhism as an organisation as such - there are many different branches, but I don't think it tends towards centralized control. The term "Buddhist church" also doesn't seem to fit.

But yeah, there are ****ty Buddhists. Not surprising.

Blowfish

Banbh wrote: »

Buddhism can also take credit for the attempted extermination of the Tamils of Sri Lanka and, let us not forget, the first suicide bombers of modern warfare, the kamikazi pilots, many of whom went to their deaths with the blessing of Buddha.

I'm no expert, but from everything I've read, the roots of the Kamikaze movement came from a mixture of Shinto Emperor worship and the Bushido concept of noble sacrifice/Seppuku. I'm not quite sure what either of those would have to do with Buddhism.

Asiaprod

Welcome to the Dark Side:)
You raise some interesting points. I look forward to this dialogue.

Banbh I think you need to edit that link its changed and I found a number of different Burma links so I am not sure which issue you are referring to.

Banbh

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/09/201292175339684455.html

I hope this is the correct link. It has the headline 'Monks stage anti-Rohingya march' but this one below may be even more informative:

http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/plight-rohingya-0022301

recedite

The monks held a banner saying, "Save your motherland Myanmar by supporting the president"

Are these the same monks we saw being beaten and clubbed by the Myanmar authorities in the Saffron Revolution a few years ago?
Just goes to show what happens when someone gets a few too many bangs to the head.

roosh

I think this discussion could be quite similar to a point that often gets raised by those arguing against atheists, namely that Stalin and Mao were atheists and [arguably] guilty of greater atrocities than the Nazis.

The counter point that is usually made is that it wasn't their atheistic beliefs (or lack of beliefs) that caused them to commit these atrocities; I think a similar point could be made in this instance.

Banbh

But in this instance it is 'buddhism' that is organising the pogroms with monks leading the charge and targeting non-buddhists.

roosh

Banbh wrote: »

But in this instance it is 'buddhism' that is organising the pogroms with monks leading the charge and targeting non-buddhists.

Unfortunately I'm not overly familiar with the story, so anything I can say will be general at best; I did have a scan through the video you posted above in post #6. It didn't seem to mention too much about Buddhist persecution of the Rohingya, and actually spoke of a military coup that overthrew the government some years back, whose law is being implemented. It also mentioned how many of the pictures that get circulated of the purported violence are fake. That's not to deny that there is violence being perpetrated against the Rohingya, rather to say that the information may not be the most reliable. I would be interested to see a few things from the report mentioned, from the organisation that the guy who was on video call is part of.


All that being said though, what I meant above was that I don't think there is anything in Buddhist teachings that would encourage such behaviour; from my own exposure to Buddhist teachings, a central tenet of them seems to be kindness and compassion towards others, especially ones enemies; it is said to be one of the necessary steps towards true happiness.

But people who practice buddhism are capable of eschewing the teachings when it suits them; they are capable of violence too. Buddhist teachings and practice are a vehicle of self-investigation, that claim to, if followed correctly, lead to enlightenment and true happiness. They are open to everyone to try; they are open to people to try and then give up; they are open to people to misinterpret; they are open to people to selectively apply; they are open to people to try to exploit.

Just because someone puts on a saffron robe and shaves their head, it doesn't necessarily mean that everything they do is "buddhist", or that it originates from buddhist teachings. Buddhist teachings are, it can be said, about overcoming our conditioned behaviours and habits, or deep seated and unskillful behaviours; it would seem that those "buddhists" involved in violence against the minorities in Myanmar have yet to overcome some of those conditioned behaviours.


Again, however, I think the discussion is similar to that of the argument re:Stalin and Mao and atheism.

recedite

roosh wrote: »

Just because someone puts on a saffron robe and shaves their head, it doesn't necessarily mean that everything they do is "buddhist"

So what you are saying is; when the monks act in an unchristian way they are not true buddhists.
Smacks of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy to me.

roosh

recedite wrote: »

roosh wrote: »

Just because someone puts on a saffron robe and shaves their head, it doesn't necessarily mean that everything they do is "buddhist"

So what you are saying is; when the monks act in an unchristian way they are not true buddhists.
Smacks of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy to me.

Not at all. It might be more beneficial to ask the question what is a "true buddhist"?

Buddhist teachings would point to the fact that there is no such thing as a "true buddhist" bcos buddhist teachings eschew such conceptualisations. When you have monks acting in the manner alluded to,what you have is monks bringing suffering upon others, and the teachings would suggest, upon themselves too. This is the behaviour of human beings who, arguably have not overcome of the ills of the Ego.

When you have people practising buddhism, learning the teachings and doing the practices, you have himan beings who are [or at least appear to be] trying to overcome attachment to the Ego, which can be the cause of such undesirable behavior in the first place.

Those monks aren't "true buddhists", but not bcos their actions are "un-buddhist", it's bcos there is no such thing as a "true buddhist" or "un-buddhist behaviour".

recedite

Is nobody going to try to defend those darned monks?
If this argument doesn't kick off soon, I'm leaving :mad:

roosh

recedite wrote: »

Is nobody going to try to defend those darned monks?
If this argument doesn't kick off soon, I'm leaving :mad:

Don't blame the monks, instead have compassion for the fact that they are likely still afflicted with a subconscious attachment to the Ego. The chances are, that if you had been born in their stead, you'd be doing the exact same thing.

Also, given that "you" and "the monks" are one and the same entity, it might be worth looking a little closer to home and seeing what responsibility "you" bear in all of this.

Banbh

And 'you' and the paedophile priests are one so what responsibility do 'you' bear for their crimes?

The original post was in the Atheism thread where I was challenged to have the courage to debate in this thread. Even the person who made that challenge failed to defend the crimes of Buddhism here. So, I'm off back to Atheism where people are prepared to discuss things rationally.

18AD

The thing is, I'd be coming from the opposite angle to roosh. But I see what you mean!

The monks are capable of speaking for themselves. They behave as they do.

I, and I would suspect no one else, can say anything about why they are doing what they do except themselves. It is not my responsibility to defend them. It is not even my responsibility to defend buddhism.

Granted also that foreign political and regional conflict (anywhere) is something so vast and complex that I have not the appropriate knowledge to comment constructively on that particular situation.

Regardless, what claim are you making with the thread? Are you saying that buddhism causes war? Because that is patently false. (Although I was pointing towards that in the thread I start called Zen at War. Have a look see.) Is it that sometimes buddhists cause war? Well, that's probably true but doesn't say very much. I gather that your point lies somewhere in between these two claims and that that is where the interesting discussion lies.

Don't run away!

Banbh

My point was that there is a deafening silence to the crimes committed by/in the name of Buddhism and yet Islam, Judaism and the various shades of Christianity are rightly exposed for their crimes.

When it comes to abuse of humanity, I suppose all religions are guilty as they are all peddling the same fraud - eternal life if you do what we tell you in this one.

18AD

Banbh wrote: »

My point was that there is a deafening silence to the crimes committed by/in the name of Buddhism and yet Islam, Judaism and the various shades of Christianity are rightly exposed for their crimes.

I'd agree. It should be known.

There's still the stronger claim though, whether Buddhism causes or does not cause violence. That's next:

When it comes to abuse of humanity, I suppose all religions are guilty as they are all peddling the same fraud - eternal life if you do what we tell you in this one.

Is buddhism saying that? I thought buddhism was the exact opposite of this. Maybe someone can correct me. But the goal is to escape samsara, the wheel of birth and rebirth and thereby end suffering through enlightenment. Also buddhism is pretty against telling people what to do.

Chuang Tzu is taoist, but I think there is enough overlap to warrent the comment.

Oscar Wilde describing Chuang Tzu: "There is nothing of the sentimentalist in him. He pities the rich more than the poor, if he ever pities at all, and prosperity seems to him as tragic a thing as suffering. He has nothing of the modern sympathy with failures, nor does he propose that the prizes should always be given on moral grounds to those who come in last in the race. It is the race itself that he objects to; and so for active sympathy, which has become the profession of so many worthy people in our own day, he thinks that trying to make others good is as silly an occupation as 'beating a drum in a forest in order to find a fugitive.' It is a mere waste of energy. That is all. While, as for a thoroughly sympathetic man, he is, in the eyes of Chuang Tzu, simply a man who is always succeed or failing to be somebody else, and so misses the only possible excuse for his own existence."

Banbh

Banbh wrote: »

eternal life if you do what we tell you in this one.

Pretty much the opposite of what buddhism teaches tbh

Banbh

Buddhism promises eternal life as do all religions. In fact it is one of the defining features of a religion. But it is its interference in the lives of others that make it objectionable.
The lama taking the boy children into the monastery for special education are monsters; the safron-robed monks with the flaming torches driving out people from their homes are monsters.
In the scale of evil it may be lesser than Islam or than Christianity was in its day but it is still a focus of ignorance, superstition and sometimes violence.

christmas2012

In fairness you dont see them jumping up and down demanding death for every little thing..

Banbh

Banbh wrote: »

Buddhism promises eternal life as do all religions.

There cannot be an immortal life, because there is no soul. Our lives are already eternal in a sense, because of the cycle of rebirth. To end that is the aim.

Everything is impermanent. To suddenly suggest there might be something permanent which is a goal would be nonsense.
I don't care if you don't want to follow the religion, nobody does, it's your own choice - but if you are going to post about it, at least learn something about what it teaches first

Banbh

There cannot be an immortal life...

Absolutely spot on. So why all the chanting of the name of a pretend immortal being and the waving of flags at him and the prayer wheels to speed up the pleading...

conor.hogan.2

Banbh wrote: »

My point was that there is a deafening silence to the crimes committed by/in the name of Buddhism and yet Islam, Judaism and the various shades of Christianity are rightly exposed for their crimes.

When it comes to abuse of humanity, I suppose all religions are guilty as they are all peddling the same fraud - eternal life if you do what we tell you in this one.

They all have a central control system as they are religions, buddhism is not. You can't compare them.

Buddhism is not a religion. You seem to struggle with this, hence you have a massive mis-understanding.

Banbh

A misunderstanding I share with all the dictionaries I can find, Wikipaedia, the United Nations, the governments of Burma, Japan and just about any other website you care to check.
I suppose when one deludes oneself into believing in supernatural forces, magic powers and eternal life, it is easy to make any word be what you want it to be.

18AD

Would you care to share any of these definitions?

I'd say it is a religion, but it doesn't necessarily involve any of those things you mention. You seem to have a very reductionist view of all religion. "It's all the same."

I believe there was a branch of Taoism that did seek immortality, but it was generally viewed as a weird cult-ish off shoot of taoism in general. I think it runs contrary to the idea of attachemnt in buddhism, in that one is trying to overcome death, and therefore one is clinging to life and perpetuating suffering.

In fact, in buddhism, to become a god or immortal is actually a hindrance to enlightenment as you become trapped in your own self-importance for thousands of years instead of escaping the cycles of suffering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortality#Buddhism

If you care to think of deathlessness as "immortality" you have to consider that it has nothing to do with continuing existence as an ego and involves attaining a state of nothingness or emptiness, which as far as I can tell would be closer to what I consider eternal death than eternal life.

Still, I fail to see what point you're actually making. If it's that buddhism sometimes causes violence, then we're in agreement, but not really saying much at all. Oil, geography, family, religion and alcohol also sometimes cause violence but they don't do it necessarily, so we don't outlaw them. You have to show that buddhism necessarily causes violence if you want it to be considered a threat to humanity.

*whoooosh* !

Ambersky

This thread seems to me to be a kind of call to look at the shadow side of Buddhism. It is a fair point that Buddhism is usually presented in the West as a peaceful, eco friendly, indeed idealistic and harmless religion.
It must however have its shadow side and in Buddhist tradition it would be thought of as beneficial to examine it. It will be interesting to see if this examination is actually willing to look for errors or if it will follow the same path as other revalations i.e. denial, blaming the messenger, citing the good nature of the accused, silencing etc.

Having grown up in the Patriarchal Hierarchical Roman Catholic tradition I am reluctant to subscribe to any other religion without making sure I am not jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

I like the fact that Buddhism is reflective and I have at least read that discussion and examination of what is really happening is encouraged before taking anything on as a belief.

One of my main measuring sticks to evaluate the difference between the theory and the practice of the compassion espoused by any religion is the issue of child protection and the treatment of vulnerable adults particularly by teachers or those who hold positions of power or respect.
If a religion or culture has a history of abuse I want to know how was the revelation of that abuse treated and I want to know what beliefs or practices within this religion can foster and or protect abusers.
Given the recent history in Ireland and how this issue has for many people brought into question everything about Christianity it is only fair I think to look into any beliefs within Buddhism that might lead to the endangerment of the vulnerable among us.

There is quite a bit written about teachers in America during the 70s and 80s taking advantage of their positions in Buddhist Communities saying that sex with them was spiritually beneficial and any partners of chosen bedfellows who objected were having problems with jealousy and their egos. I have also heard things about the sexual abuse of young monks.
http://thebuddhistblog.blogspot.ie/2010/04/sexual-abuse-isnt-just-catholic-issue.html

There are a few issues common to the practices of Patriarchal Buddhism and Patriarchal Christianity, well patriarchy for a start , oh and a denial it is a patriarchy in the first place. A look around at the guys in skirts giving all the orders/teachings or allowed to be priests monks etc should be a clue we are in a patriarchy.
Both systems have a Hierarchy while thinking of themselves as a non dualistic tradition despite only allowing men to have positions of power. Both deny the the existence of power, describing men in the highest positions as servants. Both have a tradition of encouraging followers to distance themselves from the body and women and even the earth itself. Some proponents of both traditions put spirituality over ordinary earthly things and finally there is an unhealthy over emphasis on debate and the superiority of the mind.

I dont believe either Buddhism or Christianity has to remain Patriarchal dualistic or anti body. I think Christianity is getting its shake up now. I have more hope for Buddhism particularly in the West where we are more familiar with being critical of these ideas and of seeing where they can lead to. Unfortunately in my opinion this familiarity can also lead us to adopting these trends too easily or even of misinterpreting some eastern thinking on ego and healthy identity, individuation and individualism. Intellectual ping pong games on who's ego is the smallest, finding the I and concluding that as there is no I to commit a crime in the first place, there is no crime, can lead to a kind of comfort and justification being given to abusers.

Some of you may find the link below makes for very uncomfortable reading and viewing . I have not fully examined it myself but came across it while searching for more information on this issue from a Buddhist perspective. I am going to do a bit more research on it but if this article and video is accurate it could represent a shattering of illusions for the Buddhist tradition that could be upsetting but illuminating.

Revelations of Sexual Abuse and Dehumanization in Tibetan Buddhism.
http://www.elephantjournal.com/2011/12/the-sex-lives-of-monks-confessions-of-kalu-rinpoche/

Shyam Dodge writes about the story of Kalu Rinpoche, a 21-year-old young man, is considered to be the reincarnation of Kyabje Kalu Rinpoche.

I speak from experience. I am a former monk and former guru from the Hindu tradition. And while my personal story is not one of sexual abuse, I can attest to the damages done by orthodoxy and mind-body dualism, which have the overwhelming tendency (and track record) to perpetuate dissociation, denial, and rationalizations that enable unethical and often dehumanizing—even criminal—behavior within the religious hierarchy. What to speak of how debilitating such body-negative philosophies can be to one’s personal spiritual journey. That being said, it is pretty clear by now that anytime you get a bunch of monks bonded together by an intense body-negative religious code some little kid is bound to get molested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5Ka3bEN1rs

Edit Ok I said I would look into this some more and this the story gets even weirder but interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalu_Rinpoche

roosh

Banbh wrote: »

And 'you' and the paedophile priests are one so what responsibility do 'you' bear for their crimes?

touché

Banbh wrote: »

The original post was in the Atheism thread where I was challenged to have the courage to debate in this thread. Even the person who made that challenge failed to defend the crimes of Buddhism here. So, I'm off back to Atheism where people are prepared to discuss things rationally.

I'm not entirely sure what your expectation were when you started this thread, but you questioned whether anyone was going to defend the monks, so I offered a very much tongue in cheek defense. The points raised, however, are indeed rational, and if you wish to discuss them rationally then by all means do.


It would appear to me that your understanding of Buddhism, Buddhist philosophy and practice, is even more limited than my own; this partly explains the misguidance in your questioning.

You use the term "crimes of Buddhism" as though it were a coherent idea; indeed, you assume that it is, but even a basic knoweldge of buddhist philosophy would lead you to question the very notion of such a concept.

Cutting through concepts
Buddhist philosophy and practice is, almost paradoxically, both incredibly complex and incredibly simple; complex because it pertains to the complexities of the human mind, but simple because it's aim is to cultivate awareness of those complexities and break attachment to them; what is left is the uncomplicated state of being.

Even according to Buddhist philosophy, the idea of a "buddhist" is a delusion; the philosophy points to the fact that "buddhist" is just a label that we apply to things, no such thing exists in reality. It can of course be a helpful term for the purpose of communication, but attachment to the concept, or preconceived ideas about the concept, which you appear to have, only lead to erroneous beliefs and ideas. To that end, the concept of "crimes of Buddhism" is an incoherent concept.


Buddhist philosphy would not so much say that "no true scotsman" would ever commit murder, rather it would suggest that there is no such thing as a scotsman, true or otherwise.


The Rohingya
Again, I'm not sure what sort of defense of the monks you were expecting, but I think you maybe had certain preconceived ideas stemming from your opposition to religion in general.

To my knowledge, there is nothing in Buddhist philosophy or practice that encourages or condones such behaviour; my exposure to it, limited as it may be, would suggest the complete opposite; Buddhist philosophy actually discourages such behaviour; as empathy, compassion and kindness towards others, including (but not necessarily especially) ones own enemies is seen as necessary practices to achieving full enlightenment.


But just because someone wears a robe and shaves their head, it doesn't mean that they have attained enlightenment; it actually suggests the opposite, that they haven't yet achieved it, and that they are, to varying degrees, afflicted with the "ills of the Ego"; the subconscious attachment to beliefs and concepts that lead us, and the monks, to unskillful behaviour; or behaviour that leads to our own suffering, and the suffering of others.


Just as there are scientists who believe in such theories as the plasma universe, and atheists such as Mao and Stalin who murdered people for their religious beliefs, there are buddhist practitioners who bring suffering to others and themselves.

Banbh wrote: »

My point was that there is a deafening silence to the crimes committed by/in the name of Buddhism and yet Islam, Judaism and the various shades of Christianity are rightly exposed for their crimes.

If your sole point is that there is a "deafening silence" about what is happening to the Rohingya, then you would probably find some level of agreement here; although there might be some clarification over the point of "deafening silence".

Where you will find debate, however, is over the idea of crimes being committed "by buddhism", and the idea of crimes being committed "in the name of buddhism"; the former being an inchoherent concept in and of itself, and the latter requiring a basic understanding of buddhist philosophy; as buddhist philosophy says much that relates either directly or indirectly to the that very idea.

Banbh wrote: »

When it comes to abuse of humanity, I suppose all religions are guilty as they are all peddling the same fraud - eternal life if you do what we tell you in this one.

Banbh wrote: »

Buddhism promises eternal life as do all religions. In fact it is one of the defining features of a religion.

Again, an understanding of buddhist philosophy is required here.

What your understanding of "eternal life" is and what buddhist philosophy says, if indeed it says anything, about "eternal life" are two entirely independent, and likely conflicting, propositions.

If buddhist philosophy says anything about "eternal life" it's that there is no such thing as death, because there is no such thing as birth; that is "you" were never born, so "you" can never die. This can indeed be discussed rationally, but ultimately might require engagement with spiritual practice to develop a deeper understanding, or realisation.

Banbh wrote: »

But it is its interference in the lives of others that make it objectionable. The lama taking the boy children into the monastery for special education are monsters; the safron-robed monks with the flaming torches driving out people from their homes are monsters.
In the scale of evil it may be lesser than Islam or than Christianity was in its day but it is still a focus of ignorance, superstition and sometimes violence.

I'm not sure which cases you are specifically referring to, but the cases that I am aware of, where monks take children into monasteries at early ages, is because the children's families bring them to be educated in the monasteries.

As for those driving people from their homes, that is indeed reprehensible behaviour, but it would appear to be more anathema to buddhist philosophy than representative of it.

People who practice buddhism are human first and foremost, and are subject to human condition, same as everyone else; buddhist practice and philosophy is mostly concerned with overcoming the negative aspects of the human condition; but, simply sitting on a cushion doesn't guarantee that someone will overcome those negative aspects. In buddhist philosophy, there is much said about the "traps" of the ego, and the pitfalls of practice.

Banbh wrote: »

A misunderstanding I share with all the dictionaries I can find, Wikipaedia, the United Nations, the governments of Burma, Japan and just about any other website you care to check.
I suppose when one deludes oneself into believing in supernatural forces, magic powers and eternal life, it is easy to make any word be what you want it to be.

I've heard of a teaching buddha gave, where he simply held up a flower; I didn't come across any mention of teachings where he quotes the oxford english dictionary, wikipedia or the united nations.

Again, it is probably worth highlighting that what you think "a buddhist" believes and what "a buddhist" actually believes would appear to be somewhat different.

jill_valentine

Banbh wrote: »

My point was that there is a deafening silence to the crimes committed by/in the name of Buddhism and yet Islam, Judaism and the various shades of Christianity are rightly exposed for their crimes.

When it comes to abuse of humanity, I suppose all religions are guilty as they are all peddling the same fraud - eternal life if you do what we tell you in this one.

I'm an atheist, but to be honest, there's such a vast difference between Abrahamic religions and Buddhism that trying to directly compare them doesn't really make sense.

From the tone of your other posts, I don't think you really grasp just how different the "format" is, it's like comparing glitter and blue. Buddhism is far, far more introspective and subjective than other religions, it lacks the same kind of "church" structures, and doesn't really have the same unambiguous, universal statements on particular issues set down in stone. I'll leave it to somebody better informed to illustrate the detail there, but the point is, it's not just the "character" of it that's different. You're trying to map it onto the same footprint as the religions you're familiar with, and it just doesn't fit.

roosh

18AD wrote: »

Is buddhism saying that? I thought buddhism was the exact opposite of this. Maybe someone can correct me. But the goal is to escape samsara, the wheel of birth and rebirth and thereby end suffering through enlightenment. Also buddhism is pretty against telling people what to do.

We could probably get into a nitpicking argument over whether buddhism is necessarily for or against anything, but it's probably neither necessary or in the spirit of the philosophy/religion/practice/etc.


With regard to the claim about "eternal life", the concept is so open to interpretation that it is essentially meaningless; what banbh means by "eternal life" could be wildly different to what someone else means.

The confusion probably arises from the idea of re-incarnation and the idea that there is no death; but these cannot be understood in isolation, they have to be understood in the context of "no self"; the idea that "you" or "I" were never born, so we cannot die.

That would just be my understanding anyway.

roosh

Banbh wrote: »

Absolutely spot on. So why all the chanting of the name of a pretend immortal being and the waving of flags at him and the prayer wheels to speed up the pleading...

I'm not sure what you mean by "pretend immortal being", but the chanting, which isn't solely the name of buddha, is a practice which helps to break the cycle of subconscious thoughts which affect our behaviour; it can also help to cultivate awareness of our subconscious thought patterns, while helping commit certain teachings to memory.

I'm not familiar with the practice of waving flags, but I have seen prayer flags; these can serve as visual reminders to practitioners, a means of bringing awareness back to the present moment. Just as seeing any object can have an effect on the mind, seeing a prayer flag can have a certain effect.

The spinning of prayer wheels can simply represent the possibility of performing a conscious act when engaging in prayer*.


Some people might have superstitious beliefs about the effects of both these paraphernali, but, to paraphrase the buddha, if it doesn't stand up to reason then don't believe it.


Again, this would just represent my own limited understanding.


*prayer not necessarily meaning what you think it means.

recedite

roosh, you are a very slippery customer.

*slippery not necessarily meaning what you think it means.

roosh

recedite wrote: »

roosh, you are a very slippery customer.

*slippery not necessarily meaning what you think it means.

why thank you!

Ambersky

Ambersky said
It will be interesting to see if this examination is actually willing to look for errors or if it will follow the same path as other revalations i.e. denial, blaming the messenger, citing the good nature of the accused, silencing etc.

I forgot ignore, dismiss, pretend it didnt happen and wasnt spoken about.

roosh

Ambersky wrote: »

This thread seems to me to be a kind of call to look at the shadow side of Buddhism. It is a fair point that Buddhism is usually presented in the West as a peaceful, eco friendly, indeed idealistic and harmless religion.
It must however have its shadow side and in Buddhist tradition it would be thought of as beneficial to examine it. It will be interesting to see if this examination is actually willing to look for errors or if it will follow the same path as other revalations i.e. denial, blaming the messenger, citing the good nature of the accused, silencing etc.

Having grown up in the Patriarchal Hierarchical Roman Catholic tradition I am reluctant to subscribe to any other religion without making sure I am not jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

I like the fact that Buddhism is reflective and I have at least read that discussion and examination of what is really happening is encouraged before taking anything on as a belief.

One of my main measuring sticks to evaluate the difference between the theory and the practice of the compassion espoused by any religion is the issue of child protection and the treatment of vulnerable adults particularly by teachers or those who hold positions of power or respect.
If a religion or culture has a history of abuse I want to know how was the revelation of that abuse treated and I want to know what beliefs or practices within this religion can foster and or protect abusers.
Given the recent history in Ireland and how this issue has for many people brought into question everything about Christianity it is only fair I think to look into any beliefs within Buddhism that might lead to the endangerment of the vulnerable among us.

There is quite a bit written about teachers in America during the 70s and 80s taking advantage of their positions in Buddhist Communities saying that sex with them was spiritually beneficial and any partners of chosen bedfellows who objected were having problems with jealousy and their egos. I have also heard things about the sexual abuse of young monks.
http://thebuddhistblog.blogspot.ie/2010/04/sexual-abuse-isnt-just-catholic-issue.html

There are a few issues common to the practices of Patriarchal Buddhism and Patriarchal Christianity, well patriarchy for a start , oh and a denial it is a patriarchy in the first place. A look around at the guys in skirts giving all the orders/teachings or allowed to be priests monks etc should be a clue we are in a patriarchy.
Both systems have a Hierarchy while thinking of themselves as a non dualistic tradition despite only allowing men to have positions of power. Both deny the the existence of power, describing men in the highest positions as servants. Both have a tradition of encouraging followers to distance themselves from the body and women and even the earth itself. Some proponents of both traditions put spirituality over ordinary earthly things and finally there is an unhealthy over emphasis on debate and the superiority of the mind.

I dont believe either Buddhism or Christianity has to remain Patriarchal dualistic or anti body. I think Christianity is getting its shake up now. I have more hope for Buddhism particularly in the West where we are more familiar with being critical of these ideas and of seeing where they can lead to. Unfortunately in my opinion this familiarity can also lead us to adopting these trends too easily or even of misinterpreting some eastern thinking on ego and healthy identity, individuation and individualism. Intellectual ping pong games on who's ego is the smallest, finding the I and concluding that as there is no I to commit a crime in the first place, there is no crime, can lead to a kind of comfort and justification being given to abusers.

Some of you may find the link below makes for very uncomfortable reading and viewing . I have not fully examined it myself but came across it while searching for more information on this issue from a Buddhist perspective. I am going to do a bit more research on it but if this article and video is accurate it could represent a shattering of illusions for the Buddhist tradition that could be upsetting but illuminating.

Revelations of Sexual Abuse and Dehumanization in Tibetan Buddhism.
http://www.elephantjournal.com/2011/12/the-sex-lives-of-monks-confessions-of-kalu-rinpoche/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalu_Rinpoche

Hey Ambersky,

I just had a read of the blogpost; the elephant journal.

Firstly, I don't think there's much room for discussion on the issue of sexual abuse, or other forms; there is no justification for it. All we can ever hope to do is to have compassion for the victims for the suffering they have encountered; but also to try and have some compassion for the perpetrators for whatever it was that lead them to a point that they could perpetrate such a heinous act.


With regard to the contents of the blogpost, and the depiction of spiritual philosophy, there was much in there for debate. At the very least I would look for clarification of the vast majority of the statements made with regard to spiritual philosophy. The most notable were the repeated comments about "mind-body" duality. It seemed that the author was maintaining that Buddhism, and other spiritual philosophies, were fundamentally dualisitic; which patently isn't the case with Buddhism.

Statements such as " Buddhist ... traditions teach us to not grieve the dead, for all things are impermanent" is at the very least a gross misinterpretation of what buddhist philosophy actually teaches. Also, Buddhist philosophy doesn't teach anything about "militating against the body".

Tulkus
The issue of Tulku's is a separate matter, and I think I read a comment somewhere - possibly in one of the threads on here - about how some buddhist leader was suggesting that it was an institute that could have serious negative effects for the future of Buddhism. Personally, I have my own understanding of the concept of re-incarnation, which might be different from that practiced in Tibet or elsewhere. It might also be worth stating that the concept of re-incarnation is different from the concept of re-birth; with the former arguably not even a buddhist concept, striclty speaking - to my understanding that is.


Charicature
To charicature what buddhism is about, essentially you have a guy who practiced the kind of asceticism that the guy talks about in his blogpost; figured that such an approach to sprituality was misguided; practiced meditation and found an approach that was not body denying.

Through this method he purportedly attained enlightenment, or freedom from attachment to the subconcious thoughts and behaviours that cause us and other suffering. He passed this message on to others.

To the best of my knowledge there was no part of his philosophy that condoned abuse of any kind, sexual or otherwise; I would say that actually the opposite was the case.

As part of the philosophy he pointed out some of the dangers of the Ego, such as the fact that we can selectively practice and selectively choose the parts of the philosophy that suit us; we can delude ourselves into believing we have attained enlightenment, when we haven't; we can misinterpret the concepts contained in the philosophy; and we can twist the philosophy to try and exploit others for our own gain. Such are the pitfalls of human nature; buddhist philosophy is aimed at overcoming those - but there is no guarantee that we will succeed.


As I say, I don't think there is anything in buddhist philosophy that would, even remotely come close to condoning the sexual abuse of anyone.

18AD

roosh wrote: »

We could probably get into a nitpicking argument over whether buddhism is necessarily for or against anything, but it's probably neither necessary or in the spirit of the philosophy/religion/practice/etc.


With regard to the claim about "eternal life", the concept is so open to interpretation that it is essentially meaningless; what banbh means by "eternal life" could be wildly different to what someone else means.

The confusion probably arises from the idea of re-incarnation and the idea that there is no death; but these cannot be understood in isolation, they have to be understood in the context of "no self"; the idea that "you" or "I" were never born, so we cannot die.

That would just be my understanding anyway.

Lets nitpick! :pac:

While I don't wish to have said precisely what buddhism is for or against I think it is clear enough that Banbh's account of the purpose of buddhism is wildly reductionist and misses the mark completely.

I think it's a bit unfair to render the concept of eternal life meaningless. The very fact that it may have many various interpretations is the reason it's not meaningless and is up for discussion. Some clarity of what we mean with the term would be helpful.



I think the points raised with regard to embodiment and detachment are perhaps big enough to warrant a new thread. While I don't think buddhism is against having a body, it's something that is not immediately clear. On a personal level, meditation often leads to a state of bodily unawareness and while this may not be the "goal" it is certainly a consequence. It is also clearly an approach that is favoured by some branches of buddhism.

roosh

18AD wrote: »

Lets nitpick! :pac:

I've been known to

18AD wrote: »

While I don't wish to have said precisely what buddhism is for or against I think it is clear enough that Banbh's account of the purpose of buddhism is wildly reductionist and misses the mark completely.

The point about buddhism not being for or against anything was more directed to the point that buddhism is against telling people what to do; I'm not sure that is necessarily true, even without getting into a nature of reality level discussion. I think buddhism would probably be against trying to force someone to do something as opposed to telling them to do something.

This of course being separate to banbh's point, bcos the obvious point that will get raised here is that the monks are telling the Rohingya to get out, etc. etc.

I would, of course, agree that Banbh's representation of Buddhism is largely misguided, and doesn't accurately represent the philosophy.

18AD wrote: »

I think it's a bit unfair to render the concept of eternal life meaningless. The very fact that it may have many various interpretations is the reason it's not meaningless and is up for discussion. Some clarity of what we mean with the term would be helpful.

I wouldn't necessarily render the concept meaningless, although that was far from clear, or possibly even compatible, with what I said. I would probably have been better served to say that, in the given context, without any clarification as to what banbh's interpretation of the term was, the term, or rather it's use, was essentially meaningless; due to the fact that it is so open to interpretation that anyone using the term would have to clarify what they meant when using; thereby instilling it with meaning.

I offered a possible interpretation of the term, and how it might apply to buddhism, which could potentially have offered a jumping off point for a discussion of the term; or perhaps would have been sufficient to address any potential issues arising from the pre-conceptions people may have had.

18AD wrote: »

I think the points raised with regard to embodiment and detachment are perhaps big enough to warrant a new thread. While I don't think buddhism is against having a body, it's something that is not immediately clear. On a personal level, meditation often leads to a state of bodily unawareness and while this may not be the "goal" it is certainly a consequence. It is also clearly an approach that is favoured by some branches of buddhism.

I would, again, agree that a separate thread could prove beneficial as the idea, and indeed the practice, of non-attachment is a big part of buddhist philosophy.

I wouldn't necessarily say that a state of bodily unawareness is experienced, other than perhaps becoming lost in thought, which is something we experience on a daily basis; if anything I would say that greater awareness of the body is actually experienced and cultivated.

I'm not overly familiar with all of the branches of buddhism unfortunately, and in particular any branch that favours an "anti-body" approach, as I think the blogger wrote in their piece (I'm assuming we're talking about the points raised by Ambersky here).

Ambersky

Banbh said in the op
Buddhism is sometimes regarded, in Europe anyway, as a more tolerant religion, a religion of peaceful meditation and begging baldy monks.
But like all organisations seeking control of society it has its darker side.

I am keeping to the general topic of the darker side or shadow side of Buddhism. Knowing more about abuse than war so thats the dark side I am writing about.

roosh said
Firstly, I don't think there's much room for discussion on the issue of sexual abuse, or other forms; there is no justification for it.
As I say, I don't think there is anything in buddhist philosophy that would, even remotely come close to condoning the sexual abuse of anyone.

Thanks roosh for taking the time to read the blog but I am not suggesting Buddhists or indeed Christians condone abuse what I am saying is there is a need to look at what it is about communities and in this case religious communities, their structures and their beliefs that seem to create the environments for abuses to happen.
There is nothing in the teachings of Jesus Christ that condones abuse either but christians and catholics in particular have been forced into looking at their own communities.
We can look at the theory of any religion but the real revelation is in the practice. eg "see how those Christians love one another" (or not as the case may be)

Roosh says
All we can ever hope to do is to have compassion for the victims for the suffering they have encountered; but also to try and have some compassion for the perpetrators for whatever it was that lead them to a point that they could perpetrate such a heinous act.

No I dont think thats all we can do. The above quote sounds like something the catholic bishops said about revelations withing their own community thinking the public would be satisfied with a vague spiritual nice response.
Spirituality can and in my opinion should, also incorporate courage, tenacity and the strength to say No Stop. If a religion or philosophy is nothing but sweet and nice it fails the weakest and most vulnerable. Buddhism has a tradition of invoking the Guardians, beings who understand and are up to the task of fending off attacks they are capable of action and know when and what is appropriate. Maybe we need to learn how to honor and take on this spirit.

Many of the criticisms I brought up and that are mentioned in the blogspot like the mind body dualism, power, sexism, etc. are perhaps unfamiliar here.
They are hot topics within a form of Buddhism called engaged Buddhism.
I think by having the courage to address these issues and others we can make our communities safer for the vulnerable and much better for ourselves as well. I think by looking at issues of power, sexism and dualism we will learn to reveal our own shadow sides maybe sides we have be avoiding in the pleasantness of transcendent spiritual meditations. Wouldnt that be a thought.

http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2234&Itemid=243

Thich Nhat Hanh: Engaged Buddhism is just Buddhism. When bombs begin to fall on people, you cannot stay in the meditation hall all of the time. Meditation is about the awareness of what is going on-not only in your body and in your feelings, but all around you.

When I was a novice in Vietnam, we young monks witnessed the suffering caused by the war. So we were very eager to practice Buddhism in such a way that we could bring it into society. That was not easy because the tradition does not directly offer Engaged Buddhism. So we had to do it by ourselves. That was the birth of Engaged Buddhism.

Buddhism has to do with your daily life, with your suffering and with the suffering of the people around you. You have to learn how to help a wounded child while still practicing mindful breathing. You should not allow yourself to get lost in action. Action should be meditation at the same time.

http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1579&Itemid=243

Buddhist meditation as practiced in the West frequently suffers from a profound disembodiment. Often we meditate from the neck up, as floating heads, completely cut off from the life of our bodies and our physical existence in the world. We meditate in this way because we believe, often without realizing it, that the ideal meditative state should somehow be devoid of the pain, complexity, ambiguity and physicality—in other words, the full embodiment—of our natural human condition.

You may object that the Buddha taught a dharma whose goal was to show the way out of suffering. Quite true. But often in our Western practice of Buddhism, we mistake the goal for the path, seeing the Buddha’s statement of the goal as a description of how we should go about meditating.

http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1874&Itemid=243

Before you can truly know what compassion is, you have to develop equanimity towards that which is threatening, disagreeable or fearful. Equanimity and compassion don’t come from transcending these things; they come from moving closer to what scares you, threatens you, causes you to become aggressive and selfish, and so forth.

This requires a lot of courage, but I find that’s a message people can accept. Interestingly, the idea of developing courage doesn’t seem to trigger people’s inadequacies. I think they know they have some courage. The problem is they think they’re supposed to be courageous in facing the outside world, whereas what is so profoundly transformative is the courage to look at yourself. It’s the courage to not give up on yourself, even though you do see your aggression, jealousy, meanness, and so on. And it turns out that in facing these things, we develop not self-denigration but compassion for our shared humanity.

18AD

roosh wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily say that a state of bodily unawareness is experienced, other than perhaps becoming lost in thought, which is something we experience on a daily basis; if anything I would say that greater awareness of the body is actually experienced and cultivated.

I'm not overly familiar with all of the branches of buddhism unfortunately, and in particular any branch that favours an "anti-body" approach, as I think the blogger wrote in their piece (I'm assuming we're talking about the points raised by Ambersky here).

I would be referring more to meditation relying on focusing the mind on a specific object. The result is often a dissolution of bodily awareness, in the regular sense of being aware of the body. I don't think being unaware of the body in a general day to day fashion, which of course occurs a lot. I think to cultivate awareness in a day to day sense means to be completely aware of the body. Anything else is ignorance towards embodied being, a vital fact of existence.

The notion of detachment is quite tricky and I don't know if I'm totally clear on what that entails myself. I know from meditation it means to simply observe the flow of the present withouth judgement. I guess I don't understand how exactly one could not judge and go about doing the right thing. Surely right and wrong are conceptually useless from a strictly detached viewpoint.

18AD

Ambersky wrote: »

Many of the criticisms I brought up and that are mentioned in the blogspot like the mind body dualism, power, sexism, etc. are perhaps unfamiliar here.
They are hot topics within a form of Buddhism called engaged Buddhism.
I think by having the courage to address these issues and others we can make our communities safer for the vulnerable and much better for ourselves as well. I think by looking at issues of power, sexism and dualism we will learn to reveal our own shadow sides maybe sides we have be avoiding in the pleasantness of transcendent spiritual meditations. Wouldnt that be a thought.

There's some really interesting points there. I'm not very familiar with the criticisms in a buddhist context. I had only started two threads along these lines recently.

One was about Ikkyu Sojun who was very critical of the sexism and falsity propounded by many buddhist monasteres and individuals.

The other was about Zen and War and how zen is perhaps linked, in its own philosophy, to support war.

Power, gender and embodiment are all things that interest me greatly. I wonder to what extent you can ever separate these things. Are they simply facts of human existence that take different forms amidst various contingent philosophies or are they part of the philosopies themselves? I wonder are religions and philosophies simply ways of dealing with these human given facts of gender, sexuality and politics.

Edit: Just to clarify, I don't mean for that to let buddhism off the hook for these crimes. They should be discussed in full.

roosh

Ambersky wrote: »

Thanks roosh for taking the time to read the blog but I am not suggesting Buddhists or indeed Christians condone abuse what I am saying is there is a need to look at what it is about communities and in this case religious communities, their structures and their beliefs that seem to create the environments for abuses to happen.
There is nothing in the teachings of Jesus Christ that condones abuse either but christians and catholics in particular have been forced into looking at their own communities.
We can look at the theory of any religion but the real revelation is in the practice. eg "see how those Christians love one another" (or not as the case may be)

I would completely agree that there is a need to look at the communities and structures in which abuse occurs, and to understand the environments and mentalities that can foster such an environment. I also think it is very important to do so with a sense of detachment. The issue of abuse is a very emotive one and not easily viewed in such a light however; this, unfortunately, can often lead to the baby getting thrown out with the bathwater.

If we juxtapose the fact that abuse occurs in some, or perhaps many, of these environments with the fact that there is nothing in the philosophy which encourages or condones it, then there must be some intervening factor which is the root cause. That intervening factor would appear to be the baser side of human nature. In very broad brushstrokes, if there is nothing in the philosophy that encourages or condones abuse, and you are abusing someone, then you must be doing it wrong.


There does appear to be an issue within religious communities where too much reverence for "superiors" is developed; it's not at all uncommon that a sort of cult mentality can arise, where the "leader" is revered and can do no wrong. While buddhist philosophy would actually warn about the dangers of such occurences, situations like this regularly occur within buddhist communities. This is because people are prone to do such things, it's human nature to try and associate with someone "higher" than ourselves and so vicariously raise our status, if only in our own minds. This, unfortunately, can have disastrous consequences; it can lead to unquestioning devotion to a "master" such that the master can be seen to do no wrong; every seemingly insane request from a "master" is blindly followed because "the master knows best".

Again, there is nothing necessarily within the philosophy that promotes such behaviour; instead, the philosophy warns that such behaviour can occur, given the nature of the subject at hand. People will still fall into these traps, because it is a simple matter of human nature.

There are answers, within the philosophy, as to why these kinds of thing happen; this is because the philosophy, or more accurately, the practice is concerned with developing awareness of ones own human nature and thereby facilitating an understanding of human nature in general.

Ambersky wrote: »

No I dont think thats all we can do. The above quote sounds like something the catholic bishops said about revelations withing their own community thinking the public would be satisfied with a vague spiritual nice response.
Spirituality can and in my opinion should, also incorporate courage, tenacity and the strength to say No Stop. If a religion or philosophy is nothing but sweet and nice it fails the weakest and most vulnerable. Buddhism has a tradition of invoking the Guardians, beings who understand and are up to the task of fending off attacks they are capable of action and know when and what is appropriate. Maybe we need to learn how to honor and take on this spirit.

Yes, apologies, the statement did sound a bit warm and fuzzy; however, buddhist practice is as much about action as it is about anything else; in transforming the mind we automatically transform our actions. In the context of buddhism, compassion isn't simply a feeling, it isn't sitting around and saying "isn't it terrible what has happened"; in the context of buddhism thoughts inspire actions and having compassion leads to compassionate action. Having compassion for the victims of abuse means putting a stop to it where possible, it means providing the emotional and physical support needed to overcome such a life shattering ordeal. It also means having compassion for the abuser and understanding that they too were once and innocent child, that something must have happened to bring them to the point where they would abuse someone else; and trying to give them the help that they need to transform themselves.

Ambersky wrote: »

Many of the criticisms I brought up and that are mentioned in the blogspot like the mind body dualism, power, sexism, etc. are perhaps unfamiliar here.
They are hot topics within a form of Buddhism called engaged Buddhism.
I think by having the courage to address these issues and others we can make our communities safer for the vulnerable and much better for ourselves as well. I think by looking at issues of power, sexism and dualism we will learn to reveal our own shadow sides maybe sides we have be avoiding in the pleasantness of transcendent spiritual meditations. Wouldnt that be a thought.

The issue of power and sexism I would take as distinct from mind-body dualism. I am familiar with the term "Engaged Buddhism" and familiar, to an extent, with Thich Nhat Hanh and some of his teachings. I'm not familiar with anything in his teachings which promote mind-body dualism.

I am familiar with one of his teachings in which he specifically states that the idea of dualism, in terms of body-soul dualism, is incorrect.


I couldn't comment on the issues of power and sexism though bcos I'm not sure what the charge is.

Ambersky wrote: »

http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1579&Itemid=243

I think there is one statement, or even word which summarises the issue of disembodiment:
"But often in our Western practice of Buddhism, we mistake the goal for the path, seeing the Buddha’s statement of the goal as a description of how we should go about meditating. "

The idea of disembodiment is to mistake what the teachings say.

Ambersky wrote: »

http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1874&Itemid=243

The last paragraph about compassion is very insightful; the need to develop equanimity for those things we find fearful or disagreeable; it is the need to develop compassion for the abuser as well as the abused.

There is a story I've heard in the context of buddhism which is about a man beating a dog; the idea is not just to have compassion for the dog, but also for the man beating the dog; this isn't always easy, because we can see the man as a beast, not worthy of compassion. But if we think about the fact that he is human and that he was once a child who would never have conceived of doing such a thing, what has happened to bring him to the point where he beats a defenseless dog?


To highlight something in the blogpost, where the author mentioned that buddhism teaches people not to grieve the dead; if we consider it in the context of the quote you posted above:
"we believe, often without realizing it, that the ideal meditative state should somehow be devoid of the pain, complexity, ambiguity and physicality—in other words, the full embodiment—of our natural human condition."

Buddhism doesn't teach us to avoid pain, it teaches us to experience the pain, to go through it, to not avoid it i.e. not have aversion to it.



Summary
The issue of abuse is a very serious issue, and one you rightly suggest needs to be understood and looked at; it is however a very emotive issue, and it is one in which it is all too easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

For all of the abuses of power within a buddhist establishment, there is something in the philosophy which points to the dangers of it occurring. The issue is that it is people who practice the philosophy and people are subject to human nature. As soon as we start conceptualising and putting the blame on inanimate concepts such as "crimes of buddhism" we lose sight of the real problem and with it our ability to address it adequately. We also risk losing any of the positives that might be garnered from such things as "buddhism" or indeed "christianity".

Ambersky

I would completely agree that there is a need to look at the communities and structures in which abuse occurs, and to understand the environments and mentalities that can foster such an environment. I also think it is very important to do so with a sense of detachment. The issue of abuse is a very emotive one and not easily viewed in such a light however;

I think there is something of a cultural difference as in a difference between the way women and men view emotion here. It is part of the dualism of thinking which is quite western and male in tradition to place intellect and detachment over emotion. It is quite right to get emotional or emotive about the abuse of a child. I think this idea of detachment is also popular in the Christian male tradition and there has been a fear of women who have little control over their emotions (eg hysteria a word for uncontrolled emotion coming from the womb).
This detachment was the downfall of many Christian bishops and clerics who if they had right response, an emotional human response, would have been outraged, stopped the abuse and prevented it from ever happening again.
Instead in their detachment they did not see or more importantly feel the pain of the child but saw the need to understand the man. They took a spiritual view of his sin, accepted his confession/or not, believed once the sin was ritually forgiven that he could be sent out to be in charge of children once again.
That is not to say we dont need to look at the perpetrator as you say but I think we need to look at the words compassion and help. Having compassion for and helping the perpetrator is not the soft option the bishops for example thought it meant. It means understanding the deviousness, the lies, the delusions, the very dark and shadowy side of pedophilia. It means really looking at it and I think if people in charge of children don't look at it they will not be able to adequately protect the children or vulnerable adults in their care. When it is seen and understood it can be challenged and I would say after that it must be understood and accepted that the pedophile never gets to work with or around or for children again, because that is often part of the delusion.

The ideal of detachment and the idea that we must not get too emotional over an issue like the abuse of children is a very good example of how spiritual philosophies or belief systems that initially sound benign can have dire consequences. It is probably also part of the argument for the equal involvement of women and men in organizations. That is not to say that all women or men think alike indeed women who grow up in patriarchy can be the most vocal defenders of it especially if they have managed to find success within it. But it is saying that in an organization that is exclusively male for centuries there is bound to have developed a culture with a bias in its thinking.

roosh says
I couldn't comment on the issues of power and sexism though bcos I'm not sure what the charge is.

Its odd really that I rarely hear any mention of sexism in buddhism.
We are very aware of it in Western Christianity, familiar with the debate on women priests and the effect centuries of male only celibate priesthood has had on the institution of the church and on its attitudes and teachings.
http://buddhism.about.com/od/becomingabuddhist/a/sexism.htm

Buddhist women, including nuns, have faced harsh discrimination by Buddhist institutions in Asia for centuries. There is gender inequality in most of the world's religions, of course, but that's no excuse. Is sexism intrinsic to Buddhism, or did Buddhist institutions absorb sexism from Asian culture? Can Buddhism treat women as equals, and remain Buddhism?

Let's begin at the beginning, with the historical Buddha. As told in "The First Buddhist Women," the Buddha originally refused to ordain women as nuns. He said that allowing women into the sangha would cause his teachings to survive only half as long –- 500 years instead of a 1,000.

The Buddha's cousin Ananda asked if there was any reason women could not realize enlightenment and enter Nirvana as well as men. The Buddha admitted there was no reason a woman could not be enlightened. "Women, Ananda, having gone forth are able to realize the fruit of stream-attainment or the fruit of once-returning or the fruit of non-returning or arahantship," he said.....

Can Women Enter Nirvana?

Buddhist doctrines on the enlightenment of women are contradictory. There is no one institutional authority that speaks for all Buddhism. The myriad schools and sects do not follow the same scriptures; texts that are central to some schools are not recognized as authentic by others. And the scriptures disagree.

For example, the Larger Sukhavati-vyuha Sutra, also called the Aparimitayur Sutra, is one of three sutras that provide the doctrinal basis of the Pure Land school. This sutra contains a passage usually interpreted to mean that women must be reborn as men before they can enter Nirvana.

On the other hand, the Vimilakirti Sutra teaches that maleness and femaleness, like other phenomenal distinctions, are essentially unreal. "With this in mind, the Buddha said, ’In all things, there is neither male nor female.’" The Vimilakirti is an essential text in several Mahayana schools, including Tibetan and Zen Buddhism.

Im not saying Buddhism particularly in the West is not changing and the article quoted speaks of the changes that are gradually happening in the East as well but it is odd that sexism is so rarely discussed I would say many people are unaware of it.
This isnt just individual personal sexism although it would be hard to say that doesnt exist, despite how nice everyone is, this is institutional sexism built into the structure the culture and the thinking.

roosh said
As soon as we start conceptualising and putting the blame on inanimate concepts such as "crimes of buddhism" we lose sight of the real problem and with it our ability to address it adequately. We also risk losing any of the positives that might be garnered from such things as "buddhism" or indeed "christianity".

In a way this sounds like the response of the american army to the torture photos or once again the catholic church. It sounds like a defense of the institution saying it wasnt anything intrinsic in the institution that allowed these abuses to happen it was just a few bad apples and people will be people.
Well of course I am saying I dont agree but I also dont share your fear that we will loose the positives of buddhism if we examine these issues closely.
Maybe Buddhists could learn from the Christians and examine this and learn to address the issues before and not just after they have grown out of hand.

roosh

Just wanted to say that I hope my tone hasn't been coming across too confrontational; I was trying to get replies typed up before classes, so didn't allow myself the time to try and write in a less confrontational manner.

roosh

18AD wrote: »

I would be referring more to meditation relying on focusing the mind on a specific object. The result is often a dissolution of bodily awareness, in the regular sense of being aware of the body. I don't think being unaware of the body in a general day to day fashion, which of course occurs a lot. I think to cultivate awareness in a day to day sense means to be completely aware of the body. Anything else is ignorance towards embodied being, a vital fact of existence.

Assuming that we are talking about the same practice, that would be the practice I regularly did, before becoming indisciplined, over the past few months.

While I can't say that the result isn't dissolution of bodily awareness, I can only say that I haven't experienced that. The practice of focusing on an object isn't too much different to focusing on the breath, or focusing on bodily sensations; the point, or so I believe, is just to provide an anchor to which we can return our attention when we find we have become lost in thought. This trains the mind, or creates a habit, of returning to awareness.

At no point could I say that I was ever unaware of my body, except for when I was lost in thought maybe; essentially you rest in the naked awareness that is the body and the senses of the body; or at least, that would be my understanding of it.

We could go further and question the existence of "a body" but that probably isn't necessary in this context.

18AD wrote: »

The notion of detachment is quite tricky and I don't know if I'm totally clear on what that entails myself. I know from meditation it means to simply observe the flow of the present withouth judgement. I guess I don't understand how exactly one could not judge and go about doing the right thing. Surely right and wrong are conceptually useless from a strictly detached viewpoint.

My own understanding of attachment and aversion, and their opposites might be easier to explain by way of examples.

Aversion
Let's say you wake up in the morning and you think to yourself, "oh, god, I don't want to get up; I don't want to go to work [or college or wherever]". That is what I think aversion is. Now, I've been in the situation where this thought can really take hold, it can be really strong and cause some distress at the thought of going to work; there will be an accompanying physical response. Aversion is itself a form of attachment, negative attachment in a sense.

Through meditation we can loosen the grip of the thought; while the thought might arise it is quicker to fall by the wayside and the physical reaction may not be as strong or as prolonged. The practical effect is that we get up earlier and don't make ourselves miserable at the thought of going to work.


Attachment to objects
Let's say you get a new car. You've saved for ages to get it, and you absolutely love the new car - it doesn't have to be a car, just any material possession that you could cherish.

For ages you try to maintain the car perfectly, not letting people eat or drink in the car; one day though, due to certain circumstances you allow your girlfriend to drink in the car. She spills the drink and you get angry; this causes you stress and there is a physical response and it strains relations with your girlfriend. In this case it is your attachment to the car and the idea of keeping it pristine that causes you to get angry with your girlfriend; her spilling the drink is an obvious contributory factor, but if you were not so attached to the car and the idea of it, then you could change the karma that results from that situation; if there is no attachment there may be no anger, and you don't have an argument with your girlfriend.


Attachement to ideas
One of the best examples of attachment to ideas is one that is perhaps pertinent to this general discussion; that is, attachment to religious beliefs. I think we all know the power of such attachment.

A personal example would be the notion of God; personally I have my own understanding of God that sees God as being the universe, of which we are all a part; I think this is what all the spiritual/mystic traditions point towards, even if the idea has been buried deep in dogma and ritual.

Now, on a conscious and rational level this is a conclusion I have come to; however, in a discussion a while back someone was very obviously challenging the anthropomorphic idea of "the man in the clouds"; I found myself reacting to this and defending the concept of God. On some level I still had a subconscious attachment to the concept of God and perhaps even the anthropomorphic idea of God.

This attachment lead to a more emotional and confrontational response, which in turn lead to a more confrontational response in the person I was discussing with; both with a underlying hint of anger perhaps, which of course affected our ability to see each others points objectively.



Right and Wrong
I would agree that right and wrong are conceptually useless from a detached point of view; but in a detached point of view we will still be compelled to action, just not on the basis of attachment to subconscious beliefs.

The judging of that action as "right" or "wrong" will be done by someone else, who views the action.

I suppose, to again use broad brushstrokes, the chances are that the actions will be viewed as "good" when they come from a place of non-attachment.

roosh

Ambersky wrote: »

I think there is something of a cultural difference as in a difference between the way women and men view emotion here. It is part of the dualism of thinking which is quite western and male in tradition to place intellect and detachment over emotion. It is quite right to get emotional or emotive about the abuse of a child. I think this idea of detachment is also popular in the Christian male tradition and there has been a fear of women who have little control over their emotions (eg hysteria a word for uncontrolled emotion coming from the womb).
This detachment was the downfall of many Christian bishops and clerics who if they had right response, an emotional human response, would have been outraged, stopped the abuse and prevented it from ever happening again.
Instead in their detachment they did not see or more importantly feel the pain of the child but saw the need to understand the man. They took a spiritual view of his sin, accepted his confession/or not, believed once the sin was ritually forgiven that he could be sent out to be in charge of children once again.
That is not to say we dont need to look at the perpetrator as you say but I think we need to look at the words compassion and help. Having compassion for and helping the perpetrator is not the soft option the bishops for example thought it meant. It means understanding the deviousness, the lies, the delusions, the very dark and shadowy side of pedophilia. It means really looking at it and I think if people in charge of children don't look at it they will not be able to adequately protect the children or vulnerable adults in their care. When it is seen and understood it can be challenged and I would say after that it must be understood and accepted that the pedophile never gets to work with or around or for children again, because that is often part of the delusion.

I think we need greater clarity when we speak about having an emotional response to the abuse of a child or when speaking about non-attahcment in the context of Buddhism.

Fear is equally an emotional response and, I believe, is the one through which those in positions of power acted when confronted with the abuse of children by priests; this was coupled with their attachment to their belief in the position of the church and the need to protect the church.

Anger is another emotional response and directing anger towards a priest while neglecting the emotional needs of the child isn't helpful either.

There is nothing in the idea of non-attachment, in the buddhist context, which is about denying emotions. Indeed, buddhist philosophy teaches the exact opposite; it teaches that we should allow ourselves to experience our emotions and to be fully present with them, not oppress them as those in the church undoubtedly did.

The ideal of detachment and the idea that we must not get too emotional over an issue like the abuse of children is a very good example of how spiritual philosophies or belief systems that initially sound benign can have dire consequences. It is probably also part of the argument for the equal involvement of women and men in organizations. That is not to say that all women or men think alike indeed women who grow up in patriarchy can be the most vocal defenders of it especially if they have managed to find success within it. But it is saying that in an organization that is exclusively male for centuries there is bound to have developed a culture with a bias in its thinking.

Ambersky wrote: »

Its odd really that I rarely hear any mention of sexism in buddhism.
We are very aware of it in Western Christianity, familiar with the debate on women priests and the effect centuries of male only celibate priesthood has had on the institution of the church and on its attitudes and teachings.
http://buddhism.about.com/od/becomingabuddhist/a/sexism.htm


Im not saying Buddhism particularly in the West is not changing and the article quoted speaks of the changes that are gradually happening in the East as well but it is odd that sexism is so rarely discussed I would say many people are unaware of it.
This isnt just individual personal sexism although it would be hard to say that doesnt exist, despite how nice everyone is, this is institutional sexism built into the structure the culture and the thinking.

Again, I'm not aware of anything in Buddhist philosophy that promotes or encourages sexism; my exposure to buddhism would suggest the very opposite; so if there are "buddhists" who are guilty of sexism then there must be an intervening factor.

In the piece you mentioned above, it says that the buddha "originally" refused to ordain women as nuns; do you know if this was something that continued until his death, or at what point in history it changed? I'm fairly sure there are female monks now, but I'm not sure when this came to be.

Are you familiar with the buddha's reasoning for, orginally, not ordaining women, other than the supposed longevity of his teachings? I'm not familiar with it myself, but I could hazard a guess it might have something to do with men and women living together in closed spaces and their propensity to distract each other. That's not to suggest that such relationships are unhealthy, but when it comes to monastic life they can be a distraction.

Ambersky wrote: »

In a way this sounds like the response of the american army to the torture photos or once again the catholic church. It sounds like a defense of the institution saying it wasnt anything intrinsic in the institution that allowed these abuses to happen it was just a few bad apples and people will be people.
Well of course I am saying I dont agree but I also dont share your fear that we will loose the positives of buddhism if we examine these issues closely.
Maybe Buddhists could learn from the Christians and examine this and learn to address the issues before and not just after they have grown out of hand.

No one is suggesting that we don't examine these issues closely; buddhist practice and philosophy is, itself, the act of looking at human behaviour closely.

Again, once we start dealing with conceptualisations such as "the american army" or "the catholic church" you lose sight of the real problem. If we say that "the american army" tortured prisoners, then how do we punish "the american army"; what steps do we take against "the american army" to stop this from happening?

How do we stop "the catholic church" from abusing children, given that it wasn't "the catholic church" that abused children.

In every case it is members within the organisation that commit these crimes, and people who cover them up are individuals as well. These "institutions" are just made up of individuals and it is an individuals fear of what other individuals reactions would be that lead them to cover up such issues.

EDIT2: when you discuss things in terms of abstract concepts such as "the catholic church" or "the american army" what you do is tarnish everyone with the same brush; not every priest in the church was a paedophile and not every monk in a buddhist monastery abuses children, just as not every soldier tortures prisoners. When you talk in such broad and general terms you lose sight of the real perpetrator of these crimes and the real reason for why they occur, and in so doing you don't get any closer to understanding the problem you say you want to understand.

To an limited extent it might be helpful to talk about institutions, because istitutions are just psychological phenomena with no material existence, in essence; what makes an institution an institution are the people who adhere to the rules of that institution; but those rules were devised by individuals too.

What causes priests to cover up sexual abuse scandals isn't detachment form emotion, it's severe emotional attachment to the idea of the church. If there was no emotional attachment to the idea it would be much easier to openly deal with such things.

EDIT: it might be worth mentioning that I consider myself neither a buddhist nor a christian; I'm simply discussing what I perceive to be misconceptions with regard to buddhist philosophy and other issues.

18AD

roosh wrote: »

Assuming that we are talking about the same practice, that would be the practice I regularly did, before becoming indisciplined, over the past few months.

While I can't say that the result isn't dissolution of bodily awareness, I can only say that I haven't experienced that. The practice of focusing on an object isn't too much different to focusing on the breath, or focusing on bodily sensations; the point, or so I believe, is just to provide an anchor to which we can return our attention when we find we have become lost in thought. This trains the mind, or creates a habit, of returning to awareness.

At no point could I say that I was ever unaware of my body, except for when I was lost in thought maybe; essentially you rest in the naked awareness that is the body and the senses of the body; or at least, that would be my understanding of it.

We could go further and question the existence of "a body" but that probably isn't necessary in this context.

The breath would be the "object" I'd use to concentrate on too.

After long periods of focusing on the breath certain peak experiences occur, or have done for me anyway. Perception goes wonky if it's focused on one object for a prolonged time. Sh!t gets weird!

Things like out of body experiences and "astral" bodies seem to make a whole lot of experiential sense and provide for strange pathways of experience. Perhaps you're aware of something like lucid dreaming? You can be completely aware of yourself, but you're not in your physical body. I guess I'm trying to say that awareness doesn't necessitate bodily awareness.

Then there're heavier experiences of boundary dissolution where you and the outside world are indistinguishable. To this extent things like "unity" and "oneness" are experientially verifiable. In modern parlance, the experience is where it's at.

With that said, I think there is certainly some truth to experiencing something "beyond" the body. Can't quite put my finger on it. I think they happen more often than people care to mention. Perhaps during great sex, deep sleep, intense exercise or during highly focused skills like music or writing. They aren't simply experiences of being lost in thought without bodily awareness but rather highly focused moments of a different kind.

In relation to the topic at hand it would seem clear that there are experiences that are not of a bodily nature. I don't really know if that entails mind/body dualism though. I'd be inclined to say it doesn't, and I'd say so just because it would seem harder to reasonable justify that it's not dualism. I'll think that through some more.

Keep it compassionately confrontational! :pac:

Ambersky

New Age spirituality and Buddhism have a lot of cross overs but I think both of them as expressed in the West are very individualistic.
It is very difficult for someone to use to this kind of thinking to go on to look at the working of systems, organizations and cultures. They tend to always put the responsibility and focus on the individual saying the institution is just an abstract concept.
I am saying for example that if you grow up in a society like ours that has been very sexist and still has influences of that kind of thinking that you will almost always grow up sexism in your head, in your subconscious, it will be whats normal to you.
You wont see sexism even if the only teachers you ever had were male and you met several Lamas but not one of them was a woman and are aware there is a debate as to whether a woman had to be born a man to be enlightened or become a Buddha.
Even the Buddha living in the sexist culture of his time originally refused to ordain women as nuns and changed his mind after being challenged by a woman. Jesus too changes his mind about the law when he was challenged by the outcast or Samaritan woman at the well.

Accepting that all or most people in this culture grow up more or less sexist homophobic racist etc can be kind of comforting because it takes the blame for being a bad person off your shoulders in a way. It is what is normal to you until you see it for what it is. When you actually see your own racism sexism homophobia and see how it effects others and it is harder to go on with it.
Seeing it in yourself you can have compassion for others who have it too.
Then you also find yourself understanding how you were taught these things and how they tend to keep particular organizations going the way they are going.
So it all comes from compassion and a knowledge of how things are interconnected. Unfortunately it is often those who have experienced the pain of these isms that are the most vocal and those who have not experienced them are often content in their own bubble as it were. I am saying that even if these things do not seem to affect you seeing them in yourself is a liberation and freeing allowing you more interconnectedness not less.

Ways in which a spirituality including Buddhism can incorporate connectedness with the body and the earth are for example seeing teachings in the changing and different nature of the seasons, talking about that, appreciating it and reflecting on how that is also experienced in our lives.
It can also be experienced in the world of work getting satisfaction or lessons from the experience of routine, our responses to it, what we learn from it.
We also learn from what life puts before us and from the changing cycles and stages of our own lives.
We learn from our bodies, the messages it gives us, the way it speaks the truth even when our minds try to contradict what it is telling us.
We learn especially from our relationships with real people here in our lives. Some of the most profound teachings, lessons it would be difficult for us to learn otherwise come from facing one another in relationship. Yet in some spiritual circles relationships are presented as ok if you need that kind of thing but celibate monasticism is presented as the ideal.

Some of the reasons I have come to the idea that Buddhist practitioners are divorced from their bodies is because I rarely hear conversations about the things quoted above but I do hear loads of conversation about controlling the mind along with instructions on how to achieve spiritual ephemeral highs.
Actually I think these feelings are like a natural highs they are the sparkly glittery aspects of any spirituality, they are attractive even addictive at times but they dont actually get you through the joys and the pains of life. I think their lessons are very limited.
People who present themselves as spiritual sometimes talk as though this life, this world is a burden. It can sound as if death is the point of their spirituality refusing to see or experience the joy and the pain of this auspicious human life.
I also think many Buddhist practitioners are divorced from their bodies and the earth because I have heard young men anxiously asking questions like "Is it ok to take out a pension in my job or am I getting away from living in the Now" or "Is it ok to be successful in my job".
What kind of a message is being given out by a spirituality that could give anyone the impression that to provide for themselves and their loved ones in the world of work and to just to grow up into a responsible adulthood might not be a spiritual path.

recedite

roosh wrote: »

There does appear to be an issue within religious communities where too much reverence for "superiors" is developed; it's not at all uncommon that a sort of cult mentality can arise, where the "leader" is revered and can do no wrong. While buddhist philosophy would actually warn about the dangers of such occurences, situations like this regularly occur within buddhist communities.

The situation particularly in Tibetan Buddhism is extremely hierarchical, from the Dalai Lama down. While you might argue that scepticism is built into the teachings of Buddhism, it is similar to other religions in that the system is set up to promote reverence for "superiors".

Apart from all the warm and fuzzy stuff discussed above, there is the concept of "wrathful bodhisattvas" in which monks can absolve themselves of culpability when they are involved in unsavoury activities or crimes, on the basis that good and evil are two sides of the same coin.
Then there is the puritanical killjoy stuff; the ban on singing, dancing, nice clothes etc.. Wheres the fun in that?

18AD

Ambersky wrote: »

Some of the reasons I have come to the idea that Buddhist practitioners are divorced from their bodies is because I rarely hear conversations about the things quoted above but I do hear loads of conversation about controlling the mind along with instructions on how to achieve spiritual ephemeral highs.

I'm not really sure this is the case. Obviously the spiritual highs are something people will chase after and I'd agree that they are simply one experience among many. Maybe strived for simply because they are uncommon.

But I would say that buddhism has also spawned some of the most acute bodily awareness practices in the form of martial arts and the "internal" martial arts. Hinduism even has it's yoga, which is precisely to gain mastery of the body. There is no way about this other than extremely high levels of awareness about the body.

A lot of forms of meditation are geared towards bodily awareness also.

As you mentioned controlling the mind, this goes hand in hand with controlling the body. In meditation practice you have to calm the body before you can calm the mind. It is a prerequisite.

I'd be curious as to where you think the detachment occurs in this process? Personally I don't see the disembodied "spiritual" experiences as teaching that one should be disembodied, or that those experiences are truer than embodied experience.

Again, it would appear to be a case of some buddhists are and some aren't.

roosh

18AD wrote: »

The breath would be the "object" I'd use to concentrate on too.

After long periods of focusing on the breath certain peak experiences occur, or have done for me anyway. Perception goes wonky if it's focused on one object for a prolonged time. Sh!t gets weird!

Things like out of body experiences and "astral" bodies seem to make a whole lot of experiential sense and provide for strange pathways of experience. Perhaps you're aware of something like lucid dreaming? You can be completely aware of yourself, but you're not in your physical body. I guess I'm trying to say that awareness doesn't necessitate bodily awareness.

Then there're heavier experiences of boundary dissolution where you and the outside world are indistinguishable. To this extent things like "unity" and "oneness" are experientially verifiable. In modern parlance, the experience is where it's at.

With that said, I think there is certainly some truth to experiencing something "beyond" the body. Can't quite put my finger on it. I think they happen more often than people care to mention. Perhaps during great sex, deep sleep, intense exercise or during highly focused skills like music or writing. They aren't simply experiences of being lost in thought without bodily awareness but rather highly focused moments of a different kind.

In relation to the topic at hand it would seem clear that there are experiences that are not of a bodily nature. I don't really know if that entails mind/body dualism though. I'd be inclined to say it doesn't, and I'd say so just because it would seem harder to reasonable justify that it's not dualism. I'll think that through some more.

Keep it compassionately confrontational! :pac:

There are parts of that that I, unfortunately, can't relate to, such as out of body experiences or "astral" bodies. I'm familiar with the concept of lucid dreaming but not the practice; I'd love to be able to do it, but haven't really devoted anytime to trying to experience it.

There are other parts that I can relate more easily to, although with conceptualisations there's always the possibility that we aren't necessarily talking about the same experience; but what you say with regard to boundary dissolution and the experience of "unity" and "oneness" I think I can relate to. This may be where we have been talking at cross purposes, and where conceptualisation needs clarification.

While I think I can relate to the experience, I would distinguish between boundary dissolution and unawareness of the body. Firstly, it might be worth stating that the body is a concept like any other, but a bit more persistent perhaps. As such, there is no such thing as "the body" and experiencing boundary dissolution - assuming it means what I think it means - doesn't lead to a lack of awareness of the body, rather a realisation that the body is one with the surrounding environment. The body doesn't disappear, and "bodily" sensations can still be felt, "the heart" continues to beat and can be felt, "the breath" can still be felt going into the lungs, etc. but there isn't the attachment to the idea of "my body"; that thought doesn't arise.

That would just be my understanding of it, or at least an attempt to conceptualise that understanding. In relative terms though, I would probably be very much the novice.

roosh

Ambersky wrote: »

New Age spirituality and Buddhism have a lot of cross overs but I think both of them as expressed in the West are very individualistic.

I would be inclined to agree; although the term "new age" might be somewhat misleading. I would be inclined to distinguish between "new age" philosophy and "new age" spirituality; where "new age" spirituality includes the practices of spirituality, such as meditation. Without the practices I think it is difficult to realise the truth of the philosophy and to attain liberation from the subconscious attachments we have to conscious and subconscious beliefs. Which of course affect our actions.

Ambersky wrote: »

It is very difficult for someone to use to this kind of thinking to go on to look at the working of systems, organizations and cultures. They tend to always put the responsibility and focus on the individual saying the institution is just an abstract concept.
I am saying for example that if you grow up in a society like ours that has been very sexist and still has influences of that kind of thinking that you will almost always grow up sexism in your head, in your subconscious, it will be whats normal to you.
You wont see sexism even if the only teachers you ever had were male and you met several Lamas but not one of them was a woman and are aware there is a debate as to whether a woman had to be born a man to be enlightened or become a Buddha.
Even the Buddha living in the sexist culture of his time originally refused to ordain women as nuns and changed his mind after being challenged by a woman. Jesus too changes his mind about the law when he was challenged by the outcast or Samaritan woman at the well.

Accepting that all or most people in this culture grow up more or less sexist homophobic racist etc can be kind of comforting because it takes the blame for being a bad person off your shoulders in a way. It is what is normal to you until you see it for what it is. When you actually see your own racism sexism homophobia and see how it effects others and it is harder to go on with it.
Seeing it in yourself you can have compassion for others who have it too.
Then you also find yourself understanding how you were taught these things and how they tend to keep particular organizations going the way they are going.
So it all comes from compassion and a knowledge of how things are interconnected. Unfortunately it is often those who have experienced the pain of these isms that are the most vocal and those who have not experienced them are often content in their own bubble as it were. I am saying that even if these things do not seem to affect you seeing them in yourself is a liberation and freeing allowing you more interconnectedness not less.




Ways in which a spirituality including Buddhism can incorporate connectedness with the body and the earth are for example seeing teachings in the changing and different nature of the seasons, talking about that, appreciating it and reflecting on how that is also experienced in our lives.
It can also be experienced in the world of work getting satisfaction or lessons from the experience of routine, our responses to it, what we learn from it.
We also learn from what life puts before us and from the changing cycles and stages of our own lives.
We learn from our bodies, the messages it gives us, the way it speaks the truth even when our minds try to contradict what it is telling us.
We learn especially from our relationships with real people here in our lives. Some of the most profound teachings, lessons it would be difficult for us to learn otherwise come from facing one another in relationship. Yet in some spiritual circles relationships are presented as ok if you need that kind of thing but celibate monasticism is presented as the ideal.

Firstly, the ideas of "an organisation", or "a culture" are exactly that, ideas; they are just abstract concepts, which has no objective or physical reality. "A system" is essentially the same, except when we consider the overall system that is the universe.

But if we take the concept of "an organisation" or "a culture" then spiritual philosophy and, more pointedly, practice can prove to be one of the best vehicles for looking such concepts. It might be due to a lack of exploration of spiritual philosophy and practice, or perhaps just a misunderstanding of either, but you actually reinforce the point being made.

You say "when you actually see your own racism sexism homophobia and see how it effects others and it is harder to go on with it.
Seeing it in yourself you can have compassion for others who have it too.
Then you also find yourself understanding how you were taught these things and how they tend to keep particular organizations going the way they are going."

This is precisely one aspect of what spiritual practice and philosophy is about, looking at oneself and understanding the workings of ones own mind and emotions. On the one hand you are saying that spiritual philosophy tends to put the focus on the individual, but on the other you are saying that when an individual develops awareness of their own prejudices they can understand how "the organisation" works and is perpetuated. The latter is precisely what I am saying.

"Organisations" don't have an objective, physical reality; they are made up of individuals; it is individuals who write (or wrote) the rules of the organisation and it is individuals who see that they are upheld; it is individuals who choose to follow the rules and individuals who choose to fight against them.

To return to the point you made about the detachment of priests when it came to the abuse of children, what you may not have realised was that their emotional detachment from the horror of the cases was countenanced by the subconscious emotional attachment to the church.


Everything else you say about compassion, awareness of ones own prejudices, learning from life, relationships etc. is echoed in buddhist, and spiritual teahings in general.

As for monastic life being seen as the ideal, that isn't necessarily the case. Indeed, many teachers would say that there is no need to become a monk to practice buddhism; some people may choose to become monks because they themselves feel there are too many distractions in life. I can see why from personal experience, because my own practice has suffered greatly with a change in job and relocation.

Ambersky wrote: »

Some of the reasons I have come to the idea that Buddhist practitioners are divorced from their bodies is because I rarely hear conversations about the things quoted above but I do hear loads of conversation about controlling the mind along with instructions on how to achieve spiritual ephemeral highs.


Actually I think these feelings are like a natural highs they are the sparkly glittery aspects of any spirituality, they are attractive even addictive at times but they dont actually get you through the joys and the pains of life. I think their lessons are very limited.

Only if the mind and body were separate could a focus on mastering the mind be considered divorced from ones body; it is perhaps a pre-conception about spirituality that leads to this conclusion. Buddhist philosophy sees the mind and body as one, but actions are born in the mind, so mastering the mind has dramatic effects on our actions and behaviours.

Indeed, buddhist philosophy talks about inhabiting the body fully and cultivating awareness of the senses, and not getting lost in the conceptual mind. Of course, people can get caught up in looking for these "ephemeral highs" as you put it, but again, buddhist philosophy discusses this and points to the dangers of it.

Ambersky wrote: »

People who present themselves as spiritual sometimes talk as though this life, this world is a burden. It can sound as if death is the point of their spirituality refusing to see or experience the joy and the pain of this auspicious human life.
I also think many Buddhist practitioners are divorced from their bodies and the earth because I have heard young men anxiously asking questions like "Is it ok to take out a pension in my job or am I getting away from living in the Now" or "Is it ok to be successful in my job".
What kind of a message is being given out by a spirituality that could give anyone the impression that to provide for themselves and their loved ones in the world of work and to just to grow up into a responsible adulthood might not be a spiritual path.

I can't remember what practice it is exactly, I think it's part of "the 7 points of mind training", but one of the contemplations is to meditate on the preciousness of human life; buddhist philosophy overwhelmingly points to living this life, living in the present and not projecting into the future about what will happen when we die. Part of "the seven points of mind training" is to contemplate the uncertainty of the hour of death; the idea that life can be taken from us at any time. The purpose of this isn't to cultivate a morbid fascination with death, it's to make us realise just how precious our existence is and how precious the present moment is.

While there may indeed be some people who practice buddhism who are divorced from their bodies, again, there is nothing in the teachings which, to my mind, encourages this. Buddhist philosophy points to the possibility of such occurring and to the dangers of this.


There is nothing in spiritual philosophy or practice that suggests it is not alright to provide for ones family, or to be successful in their job; it's a bit like asking what message is being taught by science if someone thinks "the observer principle" means that conscious observation of an object affects it's state; perhaps it's just a case that they don't fully understand the science.