I don't get Buddhism

Iambiguous,

That’s the thing with religion… it’s ignorant.

Plants are sentient and suffer, especially when picked and/or eaten. Vegans are insensitive bastards propping themselves as holier than thou.

I fucking hate taking antibiotics or a sip of coffee because they kill bacteria. I’m (all of us) are murderers, whether we like it or not!

Life is about listening to your biochemistry.

I’ve met many vegans who only do it because other foods don’t feel right to them. Those are natural vegans. And I’ve also met tons of vegans who do it for moral reasons and they look like pale ghosts with dark circles under their eyes with psychosis and magical thinking. The latter are the religious vegans, not the natural vegans. Everyone’s biochemistry is different, and I hate people who fuck up themselves and everyone around them because they are religious about food.

I am not contesting his argument here, but his interaction… I do not, with he…

The reason for abstinence of certain foods, could have stemmed from an intolerance or from a simple distaste for it, and then become embedded in the religion… over time.

I found this: “Lay Buddhists do eat onions and garlic, but anything from the Allium family (onions, garlic, leeks, spring onions, etc.) are avoided by monks and Lamas because they hinder meditation by causing intestinal gas” I cannot tolerate alliums anymore… nor solanums, or grains, or legumes, or pulses, or cruciferi, or dairy, or all additives/preservatives :laughing: but I do eat garlic most days, and the odd bit of gf grain or pulse… but only very rarely.

…and this: “Yes, Buddhists take alcohol. Buddhism especially the Mahayana sect does not abhor alcohol but intoxication. And, intoxication results from drinking more than required by your body. … There are instances of prominent Buddhists that reasonably drank alcohol, which is without the aim of getting intoxicated.” I think it good for the soul, to get merry at times, but not too overly so.

…or when others insist that you should consume that which you cannot, simply because it’s nutritionally good… I call that stupidity, and I find that an immoral suggestion, on the grounds of negligence.

…an example: ”…eggplants are a part of the nightshade family, a group of vegetables that include peppers, potatoes, tobacco, tomatoes, and tomatillos. Although these vegetables have been consumed over hundreds of years, they are associated with certain health problems due to their solanine content.” It is stupid to consume anything that one is intolerant to, but yet many still do, and happily suffer the gastrointestinal-consequences of their foolish gastronomic actions.

Taking the law into your own hands, is obviously unlawful, and what about those that chose to not self-isolate from the very beginning or not self-quarantine after travelling… where is their punishment, for spreading the virus further and wider?

It seems that Buddhist dietary requirements arose from need and necessity, rather than gimmick, and so became an indoctrinated dogma over time.

All such fads derive from a need, not an ideology, but become an ideology over time… an ideal standard for that group of people over there, but not necessary for that group of people over there. Different habitual strokes, for different cultural-religio folks.

Okay, but my own interest in all of this revolves around the extent to which someone chooses to observe a dietary regimen because it is a part of a religious regimen. And thus is seen not only to be a matter of health but of being in sync with any particular religious denomination insisting that one must eat or drink or not eat or not drink this or that because it is a requirement given the parameters of one’s faith. And, thus, that the behaviors one chooses in regard to diet will be judged either by God or by whatever the equivalent of God is re “the universe” for the Buddhists.

And then the part where, from their own frame of mind, this is not rooted in dasein but in one or another equivalent of the real me – soul – in tandem with the right thing to do given their commitment to a particular spiritual path.

And then, finally, the extent to which this commitment moves beyond a more or less blind leap of faith and encompasses instead actual demonstrable proof that what they believe is in fact true.

With Buddhism, there is no judge jury and executioner, only what’s right and works for you and/or your sect or monastery.

Non-adherence, to banned consumerables, would probably incur extra duties, more hours spent meditating, days or even weeks of kneeling, etc. I doubt that one of the penalties would be death, like in the olden days of the more ancient Indian religions.

Buddhism is a much more relaxed practice than you think… as are many of the Asian practices and religions, so it’s more a case of what the individual wants to put in, in relation to what they want to get out or gain from the practice… so they need to choose their monastery, sect, or Buddhist Centre, in accordance with that.

It’s not so much about what they believe is true, but what maximally works for them. Some may want a very strict Buddhist regime to follow, and others… a more relaxed Buddhist path to follow, so the individual chooses which, according to their needs.

What are they? Flower children?

You talking, to me…?

If so, care to elaborate? I can only garner that you are inferring to ‘them’ being of delicate disposition and nature?

People ain’t animals, you know… strict doesn’t mean regimental and aggressive, it just means instilling teachings and values into a person as efficiently and swiftly as possible… so what appears harsh, is simply the best route to take, to reach the required goal or outcome.

Asian practices tend not to be “relaxed”. They are hard-assed and dare I say, at times sadistic.

When they were brought to the West, they were watered down because the master practitioners thought that Westerners could not (or would not) handle it.

That’s what you seem to be describing … Western Buddhism or Western Asian practices.

Asians tend to be stricter in general, but some countries, lineages, and religions, more than others… like anything, there’s different degrees of severity of Buddhist sects.

I am, but I am also still insisting that the severity of the method that each sect and practice employs, varies… by degree, in the same way that the naughtiest kids are sent to the strictest boarding schools, and all the rest, to the more average of boarding schools.

The Case Against “Buddhism”
Randy Rosenthal talks to scholar Glenn Wallis about his thought-provoking new book A Critique of Western Buddhism: Ruins of the Buddhist Real.
at Lion’s Roar website
Lion’s Roar describes itself as “BUDDHIST WISDOM for OUR TIME”

Think about it. Why would those who call themselves Buddhists become disturbed or infuriated by a book that critiques Western Buddhism?

I can think of two reasons. One, the author gets any number of actual facts able to be determined and confirmed wrong. Two, the author’s argument that Buddhism in the West “must get ruined” because it is not in accord with their own beliefs regarding the main components of the religion. Which is always crucial for me because with so much at stake in getting enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana right – from both sides of the grave – isn’t it vital that those who choose to call themselves Buddhists are on the same page? Otherwise the one true spiritual path gets missed. And then any path that anyone is able to convince themselves is the one true path is okay. However far removed it might be from the original intent of Buddha himself. And how can that not be problem when choosing the behaviors you do with the “next world” in mind?

Thus:

An “unkempt state”. What can this reflect but an insistence that any number of “Western” paths are in fact not in sync with the Buddha’s intent. With his own understanding of the main components of a religion that, after all, he invented. And that’s important to note because unlike the many diverse Western denominations, they can always go to a God, the God, my God. So, for the Buddhist, the intent of the Buddha himself becomes all that much more important.

As for the supernatural powers of Gautama Buddha, what are we to make of them: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_ … %20himself.

In other words, as with Catholicism configuring into Protestant denominations to accommodate the historical reality of capitalism, Buddhism here in the West must follow suit.

But that just begs the question: in regard to the behaviors that, say, the Dalai Lama chooses in our postmodern world how much is he willing to “ignore aspects of the early Buddhist scriptures”.

So, if what’s right and what works for you as an individual need be as far as it goes, then anyone who believes anything at all about being a Buddhist need be as far as it goes when whatever that is the equivalent of God out there in the universe sets into motion the parts that revolve around reincarnation and Nirvana.

And all those other religious denominations that, instead, believe God judges your behaviors on this side of the grave…they have got it all wrong?

It must be relaxed when individual Buddhists are able to pick and choose only those practices and behaviors they think are in accord with what they have read or heard about the Buddha. Choices that, in turn, are in sync only with the “lifestyle” they are most comfortable with.

The Case Against “Buddhism”
Randy Rosenthal talks to scholar Glenn Wallis about his thought-provoking new book A Critique of Western Buddhism: Ruins of the Buddhist Real.
at Lion’s Roar website
Lion’s Roar describes itself as “BUDDHIST WISDOM for OUR TIME”

Buddhism. Returned to its “natural condition”. Ruined in the West by those who have reconfigured it into a spiritual path more in sync with our postmodern industrial world thoroughly shaped and molded by, among other things, our capitalist political economy. A “context” wholly unfamiliar to Gautama Buddha, who lived in “ancient India” 500 years before the birth of Christ.

Not annihilated however. Just refashioned into a shape more to the liking of someone convinced that they in fact grasp the “original intent” of Buddha. Their own “transformation” in other words.

And what can this be other than the strictest interpretation of what Gautama Buddha meant by what he said in regards to enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana. And that’s basically what I am interested in. What did he say about them and how can what he said [and meant] be made applicable to the behaviors that Buddhists choose. Whether in the East or the West. But less in regard to things like addiction and more in regard to moral and political values that come into conflict.

That’s my point in regard to all religious denominations. What is the bare minimum commitment when it comes to being sufficiently Buddhist or Hindu or Christion or Shinto? And this dialogue would include anthropology and political science and ethics and sociology and the physical laws of nature.

And then after someone is able to establish that in fact he or she is sufficiently Buddhist, we can discuss this given a set of circumstances revolving around my own interests in religion.

I was thinking about this watering down recently, first in relation to mindfullness and then in relation to the way pharmaceutical companies pull out a single chemical from a plant (and tweak it in the lab if they can so they can patent it) rather than using the whole plant and herbalists generally do. So you have mindfullness which is a single practice from Buddhist without any of the culture - including the four noble truths, including stories of the Buddha, rituals, chanting, incense, the practical morals, compassion and so on.

I am not saying this is wrong per se, but extremely reductionistic. It presumes one can pull one piece of a whole and use it. Most of the herbalists I have worked with consider plants to have a complex of chemical or traits and that these can offset the sideeffects of the specific chemical or trait that one most wants to use in plant, say for arthritis or whatever. Also that mixes of plants can be much better than single plants because there are synergistic effects, but also one then needs a lower dosage of each drug thus reducing any toxic side effects.

So we have this tendency to reduce in the West - take out the single ‘best’ piece and reproduce it and consider the rest chaff. In the pharma world we can see the incredible amount of side effects of the medicines themselves, often causing really rather large numbers of deaths and other serious problems. Of course many of these medicines are extremely effective. It’s not that reductionism is wrong per se, nor is holism necessarily right. Each have positive and negative aspects. But it seems like it would be positive if people in Western medicine say, or those importing pieces of other systems, at least

considered

that they might be making mistakes when plucking out single strands of fiber from a whole cloth.

Which, by the way, is not me saying that one must take wholes and I don’t ‘take the whole’ of Buddhism, though I think Buddhism did help me disentangle myself from some problematic ideas in Western philosophy (take philosophy in this in very broad terms to include cultural assumptions). Sometimes teachers and experts are totally spot on about one thing but off on others.

I am not selling a counterrule.

It’s just that someting like Buddhism is an ecology of pieces, an interlocking, intercausal whole. And there is a hubris in thinking that one understands what it means to pluck out just one piece. At least acknowledging this hubris seems rational and cautious to me.

This is one of those rare occasions when i have to agree with lamb, at least for pointing out something which i said before in this very thread and some other threads too.

Unlike Glenn, i have not studied pali language or Buddhism for forty years but as i am involved in serious meditation in person, though not essentially according to Buddhism since but last thirty years and counting, thus able to understand what Glenn is saying and why. Any honest and serious investigator would reach the same conclusion

Buddhism goes way beyond mere mindfulness and likewise concepts which are generally considered as the ultimate goal of Buddhism in the west. It is not about only calming one’s mind and easing tensions and thus improving mental health. These practices are just enablers to get real goal, which is ascending in spiritually. Having said that is also true that these practices are essential also. Just as a tennis player musk know how to top spin, side spin and undercut a tennis boll but all these skill will not serve any purpose in he would not have a good running stamina. So, in a way, running endurance is essential for a successful tennis player otherwise he will be worn out in just five minutes during a match but just having good running stamina is enough to be successful tennis player? Of course not. He must have a lot of other skills also.

The same is true for Buddhism also. All these practices are good and necessary but neither goal nor sufficient. These are just the necessary groundwork to build on further. But, the Western Buddhism stops there and have no intention to go on further.

Just as KT pointed out in the last post, west nitpicked what it found suitable and agreeable from the Buddhism and named it Buddhism. And, Buddhism did not object to it either. Perhaps that is only reason why Buddhism is the only Eastern religion which is able to spread its roots in the west. If one goes purely about the basic concepts of the religion, it is Jainism not Buddhism which is more closer to western ideology than Buddhism but it never found any takers in the west just because Jainism did not allow itself migrating from the core principles.

Western intellectuals think that they can attain enlightenment by discussing Buddhism while having Chicken wings with a glass of wine, But it is never going to work. Having said that i am not saying that it is a bad thing either.

with love,
sanjay

Sufism and Taoism have made inroads and Hinduism has done quite well in the West through various ashrams and gurus, though not as well as Buddhism. However the parallel there is Yoga: here a physical process has been plucked out of the wider religious and cultural practices, just as mindfulness has been plucked out of Buddhism. And Yoga is all over the place. And portions the New Age movements have plucked bits and pieces from both and other traditions. And, of course, there are many Hinduisms and many Buddhisms, the differences between them, as Mags pointed out, even in the East can be staggeringly different.

When Buddhism is brought into a new area, it doesn’t take the entire culture of the old area with it. It’s absorbed into the existing culture of the area. It changes. One can see that in the move east out of India. China, Tibet, Japan all adapted it to their own needs. The move into the West is yet another adaptation.

I thought a lot about it last night when I read your post. I don’t know which parts of Buddhism ought to be retained by the West and which ought to be dropped. It’s an interesting question. I wonder what Glenn Wallis thinks the “ruins” of Buddhism are. And by “ruins” he means the core foundations which survive the weathering of time and place. I’m tempted to get the book.

Sure, though when Buddhism moved to China and Tibet it retained a complex ecology that was transformed in the new culture. This also happened in the WEst. But one thing that also happened in the West was this plucking out of one portion, for example mindfulness. Perhaps this happened in other countries in the East, I don’t know, but it certainly happened here not unlike how Yoga was plucked out from Hinduism. I am not saying this is bad, in fact I pluck myself from different systems and approaches in a number of areas in my life. I think, though it’s good if one is aware one may be missing something vital even for that single piece.

I don’t think there is any universal answer. It would depend on one’s goals and needs and what else one is working with.

You really only find out if you missed a vital part after you try it without that part and you discover a problem.

One could say that the ancient Buddhists already did that and discovered what was vital. But they were living in another world.

Are the same parts vital in the modern high tech world that were vital back then?

If you focus purely on mindfulness, then which vital part are you missing? And why is it vital?

It would be interesting to see what conclusions he reached after 40 years of study.

From my own frame of mind this is just one more “general description intellectual contraption” that steers clear of that which is of most importance to me in regard to “ascending spiritually”: morality here and now, immortality there and then.

The existential relationship between them given the manner in which I construe this as the embodiment of dasein.

Whether someone subscribes more to the original intent of Gautama Buddha, or to one of the many “schools of Buddhism” around today [East or West] – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Buddhism – how are their beliefs reconfigured into the behaviors they choose? And how do they connect the dots between those behaviors and what they imagine the fate of “I” to be after having shuffled off this mortal coil.

And, finally, of most importance by far, how would they go about demonstrating that what they believe is true about any of this is something that can in fact be demonstrated as true beyond a leap of faith.

The Dalai Lama and Keith Raniere. East meets West. Cult to cult?

dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … -cult.html

This might just be tabloid fare but there have been documentaries shown on HBO and Stars that noted this “exchange” as well.

Or you never notice the problem because you have nothing to compare it to. How does the mindfulness focused person realize what they are missing.

I would think that to get at deep issues you need to make more global changes in your life. For example, the behaviora/‘moralish’ portions of Buddhism would have all sorts of affects on your self-relation and how you relate to other people and thus think of and feel as yourself. It certainly might need to be a different complete system, but a complete one nonetheless. But further, there might even be subtle bad effects, which the practitioners are not in a position to notice, having nothing to compare it to.

Well, that’s the question. Some serious meditators spent decades and decades of meditation and continued to decide that a more global approach was necessary. They might be wrong, but no one seems to even consider it a valid question in the West. Perhaps knowing the four noble truths might have a use. Perhaps the study with a master. Perhaps significant time in retreat from society. Perhaps a strong focus on compassion for other creatures. These are not small things.

Perhaps mindfulness on its own leads to a kind of peaceful narcissism, something that could be seen in much of the New Age Movement, which was notorious for going shopping in both Western and Eastern traditions like they were in a candy store.

And it’s not that I would say even some of the more shallow approaches are wrong - heck, I don’t like Buddhism - but people seem to simply assume they can take one thing out and it has to be peachy. The one trick pony experts abound. spirituality as fashion

It would be interesting to see what conclusions he reached after 40 years of study.
[/quote]
Who is ‘he’?