Buddism without buddism

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
Posts: 1244
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: Buddism without buddism

Post by Tsongkhapafan »

amanitamusc wrote:
Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Ummmm... have you looked at the state of the world today?
Yes, I see a world that need Dharma, not feel good platitudes. I rest my case.
Do you mean the world needs nkt?
The world needs all Buddhist traditions.
User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
Posts: 1244
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: Buddism without buddism

Post by Tsongkhapafan »

Malcolm wrote:
Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
....You will be shocked to learn that I said to him that this kind of policy could not happen in Mongolia, that the Mongolian Gvt. would be wrong to ban Shugden practice because they value religious freedom and so forth. He was not terribly happy with my answer, but he understood it.

You see, the point is that is an instance of secular ethics, the separation of church and state are vital to everyone's freedom. A liberal open society requires a firm grounding in secular ethics for the benefit of everyone. Secular ethics are the foundation of the liberal state, they are the foundation of any open society. Thus, even though I personally think the practice of Dorje Shugden is harmful and deeply misguided, by the same token, in a liberal state, an open society, I have no choice but to accept that there are those who wish to perform this practice because of their religious beliefs.

You yourself invoked a separation of Dharma and politics. This is not a value that comes from the Dharma, this is a secular value, which finds its roots in the establishment clause of the first amendment of the US Constitution. Your and my best hope for religious freedom, economic wellbeing and justice is based precisely on the very secular ethics you are deriding. In other words, when you live in a pluralistic, diverse society like the US and Europe, one has no choice but to develop a strong and robust framework of secular ethics. It is absolutely necessary for everyone's wellbeing.
The witch hunt against Shugden practice and practitioners is very sad, but that's another topic and a banned one.

You did the right thing - everyone has a right to practise what they wish as long as it doesn't harm others. Religious freedom and human rights are very important and no one has the right to ban another person's religious beliefs. The Gelugpas were wrong to persecute the Jonangpas in the past, for example, and this is an example of Dharma being used for political purposes.

The separation of Dharma and politics is a value that comes from Dharma, because a Dharma that is motivated by politics is not Dharma. Pure spiritual traditions have to be free from politics because a spiritual life cannot be motivated by worldly concerns. Many spiritual traditions espouse meditation on death to overcome worldly concerns, and politics is worldly, so there is no place where Dharma and politics meet. Freedoms have to be enshrined in law because we are deluded beings and the likelihood of being able to practice moral discipline is small but that's no substitute for genuine spirituality. Laws are political, a completely different thing to Dharma. Secular ethics can be promoted by judges, the police and politicians, it doesn't need to be promoted by Spiritual Teachers who have a more important job to do in spreading genuine spirituality. If everyone practises a genuine spiritual path there is no need to enshrine ethical values in law because people will practise moral discipline. You can argue that only those who possess the eight freedoms and ten endowments have the opportunity to practise Dharma but there may be many such people who have the potential to practise but cannot at the moment because they don't have access to a centre or to a Teacher, so we should try to provide the outer conditions in my view and encourage people to find real solutions to their problems.

My point all along has been that it's no good just telling people to love each other or to practise compassion, like giving a sermon, if they have no method to be able to do so. Secular ethics doesn't give you any methods so a genuine spiritual path would be seem to be the method by which secular ethics can be upheld.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddism without buddism

Post by Malcolm »

Tsongkhapafan wrote:
The separation of Dharma and politics is a value that comes from Dharma...
You are quite mistaken and naive here.
...because a Dharma that is motivated by politics is not Dharma.
This statement contradicts the above statement. Why?, because the imperative to separate Dharma from politics is primarily a political imperative, not a spiritual one. History, including that of Tibet, is filled with examples of Kings who imposed religions on the populace.
Pure spiritual traditions have to be free from politics because a spiritual life cannot be motivated by worldly concerns. Many spiritual traditions espouse meditation on death to overcome worldly concerns, and politics is worldly, so there is no place where Dharma and politics meet.
Again, you are being naive.
Freedoms have to be enshrined in law because we are deluded beings and the likelihood of being able to practice moral discipline is small but that's no substitute for genuine spirituality.
Freedoms have to be enshrined in laws because this is how people's rights are guaranteed. And not everyone wants a "spirituality", genuine or otherwise.
Laws are political, a completely different thing to Dharma.
Laws are social, not merely political. Dharma also has politics. It is not good to bury your head in the sand.
Secular ethics can be promoted by judges, the police and politicians, it doesn't need to be promoted by Spiritual Teachers who have a more important job to do in spreading genuine spirituality.
Religious teachers need to promote secular ethics as well. For example, one of the reasons there is a clash between the Muslim world and the West is that there are so many variations in religious Islamic law. The obvious solution to me is that Muslim religious leaders should support the open secular society in their countries as the best way to safeguard their own freedom to worship Allah as they see fit. It is for this reason that it is vitally important that spiritual teachers and secularists come together in agreement over common secular ethics so that EVERYONE can live in harmony and at the same time practice whatever spiritual tradition they want.

Your solution is a kind of religious isolationism — fine if you're Amish, but then, the Amish are disappearing, since they are not integrated into the larger US society.
If everyone practises a genuine spiritual path there is no need to enshrine ethical values in law because people will practise moral discipline.
But the only genuine path you recognize is Buddhism. So, your view is as impractical as it is utopian.

There will never be a time on this planet when all people follow the Dharma just as there has never been a time on this planet when all people followed the Dharma.

Therefore, the realistic and practical alternative to your pie in the sky utopianism is the further development of the liberal secular state based on the principle of a democratic, open society. Actually, you and the people who think like you are making a huge mistake by deriding secular ethics. Why?, because the Dharma will have its best chance to touch the lives of many people in precisely the kind of open, liberal society I am advocating.
You can argue that only those who possess the eight freedom and ten endowments have the opportunity to practise Dharma but there may be many such people who have the potential to practise but cannot at the moment because they don't have access to a centre or to a Teacher, so we should try to provide that opportunity in my view and encourage people to find real solutions to their problems.
All sentient beings have the potential to practice Dharma, merely because they are sentient beings. But part of the 18 qualifications of a human birth is access to Dharma.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Buddism without buddism

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Malcolm wrote:
TKF wrote:Pure spiritual traditions have to be free from politics because a spiritual life cannot be motivated by worldly concerns. Many spiritual traditions espouse meditation on death to overcome worldly concerns, and politics is worldly, so there is no place where Dharma and politics meet.
Again, you are being naive.
He may be naive, but he is technically correct. In this respect I am naive as well, but to a slightly lesser degree. (The Gelug emphasis on Lam Rim that I have in common with TKF are showing here.) The way I see it "pure spiritual traditions" is almost an oxymoron. Once money, power and prestige come into play with the creation of institutions, the 8 worldly dharmas begin to intrude. One of the reasons that I'm a fan of 12 step programs is that they have made a serious attempt at defusing 6 our of the 8 worldly dharmas. By that i mean that, according to their own bylaws, nobody is supposed to be able to make money, become famous, or pull power trips (+ or -) on anybody else. Unfortunately that leaves sex in the mix, and even Bill W. "13th stepped" a lot of women.

Wha t is not an oxymoron is a "pure spiritual practice". That is an individual thing, and it can be done in any environment. It is possible to be on retreat and have your mind filled with motivations of money, sex, power and prestige. Or you can be like HHDL who was born into power and prestige and yet is unaffected by it. So no, on the level of the individual I don't think it is overly naive, but certainly not a given either. If you don't believe me just try it. And TKF is right; that is what the meditation on death is for. Most of us usually just toss it because it reminds us of Christianity.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddism without buddism

Post by Malcolm »

smcj wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
TKF wrote:Pure spiritual traditions have to be free from politics because a spiritual life cannot be motivated by worldly concerns. Many spiritual traditions espouse meditation on death to overcome worldly concerns, and politics is worldly, so there is no place where Dharma and politics meet.
Again, you are being naive.
He may be naive, but he is technically correct. In this respect I am naive as well, but to a slightly lesser degree. (The Gelug emphasis on Lam Rim that I have in common with TKF are showing here.) The way I see it "pure spiritual traditions" is almost an oxymoron. Once money, power and prestige come into play with the creation of institutions, the 8 worldly dharmas begin to intrude. One of the reasons that I'm a fan of 12 step programs is that they have made a serious attempt at defusing 6 our of the 8 worldly dharmas. By that i mean that, according to their own bylaws, nobody is supposed to be able to make money, become famous, or pull power trips (+ or -) on anybody else. Unfortunately that leaves sex in the mix, and even Bill W. "13th stepped" a lot of women.

Wha t is not an oxymoron is a "pure spiritual practice". That is an individual thing, and it can be done in any environment. It is possible to be on retreat and have your mind filled with motivations of money, sex, power and prestige. Or you can be like HHDL who was born into power and prestige and yet is unaffected by it. So no, on the level of the individual I don't think it is overly naive, but certainly not a given either. If you don't believe me just try it. And TKF is right; that is what the meditation on death is for. Most of us usually just toss it because it reminds us of Christianity.
He is being naive because there is no samsara without nirvana, and no nirvana without samsara. There is no such a thing as a pure spiritual tradition that exists outside the world. The idea that spiritual traditions should eschew worldly concerns is morally bankrupt, in my opinion, it is a form of impractical utopianism. It is from his utopian stance that he took up the banner of criticizing HHDL for advocating secular ethics to begin with. He does not, and you do not here, seem to understand that it is precisely the world that we have that creates the fertile swamp in which the lotus flower of the Dharma can blossom. Secular ethics in a liberal society give those lotuses the room they need to grow, because you can be sure they will not blossom at all in a fundamentalist Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or Christian society.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Buddism without buddism

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Malcolm wrote:He does not, and you do not here, seem to understand that it is precisely the world that we have that creates the fertile swamp in which the lotus flower of the Dharma can blossom.
Good analogy. The value of the swamp is that the lotus grows out of it. The value of the lotus us that it is not stained by the swamp. If no lotus grows, or if the lotus is contaminated and stained by the swamp, then the swamp triumphs. If that happens then there is no value to either the swamp or the lotus.
Secular ethics in a liberal society give those lotuses the room they need to grow, because you can be sure they will not blossom at all in a fundamentalist Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or Christian society.
I'm all for separation of church and state, so I'm with you in regards to the value of secular ethics in society. In no small part it keeps the crudest of the 8 worldly dharmas out of Dharma. Obviously it doesn't take care of the problem entirely, but it is a step in the right direction.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
Posts: 1244
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: Buddism without buddism

Post by Tsongkhapafan »

Malcolm wrote:
All sentient beings have the potential to practice Dharma, merely because they are sentient beings. But part of the 18 qualifications of a human birth is access to Dharma.
Precisely my point and the reason why we should be trying to make Dharma accessible to everyone who has a special karmic connection and ability to practise in this life.
The idea that spiritual traditions should eschew worldly concerns is morally bankrupt, in my opinion, it is a form of impractical utopianism.
I'm disappointed by your response regarding the 'worldliness' of spiritual paths. Spiritual paths can be in the world but not of the world - you have to have a Dharma that is matched to a person's capacity and ability to practice and it has to be practical but in order to function it has to be free from politics and worldly concerns. I'm surprised you don't understand this. A spiritual path cannot be leading you deeper into samsara.

Anyway, we seem to be arguing in circles and I've stated my position, so 'I'm out' - thanks for the discussion.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddism without buddism

Post by Malcolm »

Tsongkhapafan wrote: I'm disappointed by your response regarding the 'worldliness' of spiritual paths. Spiritual paths can be in the world but not of the world - you have to have a Dharma that is matched to a person's capacity and ability to practice and it has to be practical but in order to function it has to be free from politics and worldly concerns. I'm surprised you don't understand this. A spiritual path cannot be leading you deeper into samsara.
A true spiritual path must engage the world, not seek to rise above it. We live in the world. Our path is only of value insofar as in transforming ourselves, others around us are transformed and in the end, the world is transformed. That transformation requires a stable country, economic prosperity and freedom for everyone. Those last three goals are best secured in an open, liberal, democratic state based on robust secular ethics. The Dalai Lama understands this, I am surprised you don't.
User avatar
maybay
Posts: 1604
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:12 pm

Re: Buddism without buddism

Post by maybay »

Tsongkhapafan wrote:Secular ethics can be promoted by judges, the police and politicians, it doesn't need to be promoted by Spiritual Teachers who have a more important job to do in spreading genuine spirituality.
It wouldn't represent a conflict of interests though. Spiritual teachers are best placed for this sort of thing. But really, promoting ethics is everyone's responsibility. A judge is quite literally the last person you get to when all other ethical possibilities have failed.

I think we just need more imagination about what ethics actually is, and what's weakening it. Like for example this paragraph from a rental agreement
2.10 To forfeit the Property at the end of the Term in the same condition and state it was in at the beginning of the Term, including cleanliness.
To me this is a question of ethics, trust and understanding between the lessor and lessee. It shouldn't be written into the contract. I can't see myself referring to this paragraph to settle a dispute, and keeping it in just seems to lower the trust I would like and expect to have with any tenant. So I've taken it out. Now I presume I'm marginally less protected. But that's what ethics boils down to – favouring less efficiencies, security and insurances, i.e. being kind and trusting people. Strengthening the state, increasing competitiveness (through liberal market policies), rapid technological innovation, these take us the other way.
People will know nothing and everything
Remember nothing and everything
Think nothing and everything
Do nothing and everything
- Machig Labdron
boda
Posts: 2182
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:40 pm

Re: Buddism without buddism

Post by boda »

maybay wrote:
Tsongkhapafan wrote:Secular ethics can be promoted by judges, the police and politicians, it doesn't need to be promoted by Spiritual Teachers who have a more important job to do in spreading genuine spirituality.
It wouldn't represent a conflict of interests though. Spiritual teachers are best placed for this sort of thing. But really, promoting ethics is everyone's responsibility. A judge is quite literally the last person you get to when all other ethical possibilities have failed.
He said "promoted." If a supreme court judge rules in favor or abortion they are promoting free choice, for example.
Rakz
Posts: 1381
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:04 am

Re: Buddism without buddism

Post by Rakz »

Malcolm wrote:
Tsongkhapafan wrote: I'm disappointed by your response regarding the 'worldliness' of spiritual paths. Spiritual paths can be in the world but not of the world - you have to have a Dharma that is matched to a person's capacity and ability to practice and it has to be practical but in order to function it has to be free from politics and worldly concerns. I'm surprised you don't understand this. A spiritual path cannot be leading you deeper into samsara.
A true spiritual path must engage the world, not seek to rise above it. We live in the world. Our path is only of value insofar as in transforming ourselves, others around us are transformed and in the end, the world is transformed. That transformation requires a stable country, economic prosperity and freedom for everyone. Those last three goals are best secured in an open, liberal, democratic state based on robust secular ethics. The Dalai Lama understands this, I am surprised you don't.
I agree with these values but they can also be considered a weakness. Look at France for example. An extremely liberal country and consistent victim of terrorist attacks.
User avatar
maybay
Posts: 1604
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:12 pm

Re: Buddism without buddism

Post by maybay »

boda wrote:
maybay wrote:
Tsongkhapafan wrote:Secular ethics can be promoted by judges, the police and politicians, it doesn't need to be promoted by Spiritual Teachers who have a more important job to do in spreading genuine spirituality.
It wouldn't represent a conflict of interests though. Spiritual teachers are best placed for this sort of thing. But really, promoting ethics is everyone's responsibility. A judge is quite literally the last person you get to when all other ethical possibilities have failed.
He said "promoted." If a supreme court judge rules in favor or abortion they are promoting free choice, for example.
If he/she rules against, presumably they are pro-life. Both judgements have ethical merit.
I don't think abortion is a good example to have a discussion around.
People will know nothing and everything
Remember nothing and everything
Think nothing and everything
Do nothing and everything
- Machig Labdron
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddism without buddism

Post by Malcolm »

Tenso wrote: I agree with these values but they can also be considered a weakness. Look at France for example. An extremely liberal country and consistent victim of terrorist attacks.
Well, I don't think we should abandon such values merely because there are some people who are insane enough not to see their value and benefit.
User avatar
maybay
Posts: 1604
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:12 pm

Re: Buddism without buddism

Post by maybay »

Tenso, why would you say we should abandon these values?
People will know nothing and everything
Remember nothing and everything
Think nothing and everything
Do nothing and everything
- Machig Labdron
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddism without buddism

Post by Malcolm »

maybay wrote:Tenso, why would you say we should abandon these values?
Did he?
Rakz
Posts: 1381
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:04 am

Re: Buddism without buddism

Post by Rakz »

What? I didn't say that anywhere. The "secular values" need to be reformed somehow though otherwise liberal countries will start looking like any other place in the middle east sooner or later. Too much tolerance can lead to utter disaster as we have already seen now. Can't let the white guilt get too much out of hand and keep bending over backwards for people that just don't want to integrate into society. Just my humble opinion.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddism without buddism

Post by Malcolm »

Tenso wrote:Too much tolerance can lead to utter disaster as we have already seen now.
This is victim blaming. "Oh, the French were too tolerant. They should become less tolerant to prevent such attacks." This is really no different than saying of a women, "She dressed like a slut, no wonder she was raped."

Actually, it is not the tolerance of the French that was the problem, it is the intolerance and hatred of a few extremists that is the problem.

Personally, I think the best response to this is doubling down on liberal, secular values, like Slut Walk:

Image
User avatar
tomschwarz
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:31 am

Re: Buddism without buddism

Post by tomschwarz »

Now I presume I'm marginally less protected. But that's what ethics boils down to – favouring less efficiencies, security and insurances, i.e. being kind and trusting people.
absolutely maybay

I could be wrong but I am almost positive that terrorist acts will end completely if you let radical muslims have their Iraq Iran Syria Saudi Arabia Egypt libia and so on. and most importantly don't bomb those poor people.
i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA
Rakz
Posts: 1381
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:04 am

Re: Buddism without buddism

Post by Rakz »

Malcolm wrote:
This is victim blaming. "Oh, the French were too tolerant. They should become less tolerant to prevent such attacks." This is really no different than saying of a women, "She dressed like a slut, no wonder she was raped."
It has a lot to do with the immigration policies of France. They bring in a huge number of people in and allow Islamic ghettos to pop up all over the place which have been proven to be nothing but a breeding ground for these terrorists. You don't think that's a problem that France created for themselves?
Personally, I think the best response to this is doubling down on liberal, secular values, like Slut Walk:
That would do nothing but give more reasons for intolerant Muslims to hate the west.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddism without buddism

Post by Malcolm »

Tenso wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
This is victim blaming. "Oh, the French were too tolerant. They should become less tolerant to prevent such attacks." This is really no different than saying of a women, "She dressed like a slut, no wonder she was raped."
It has a lot to do with the immigration policies of France. They bring in a huge number of people in and allow Islamic ghettos to pop up all over the place which have been proven to be nothing but a breeding ground for these terrorists. You don't think that's a problem that France created for themselves?
Personally, I think the best response to this is doubling down on liberal, secular values, like Slut Walk:
That would do nothing but give more reasons for intolerant Muslims to hate the west.

I reply here:

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 11879#wrap
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”