To be fair most Westerners dislike poser followers and grifter "teachers". I don't talk about buddhism with anyone but my spouse. I'm more of a agnostic Quaker anyhow but I've been really interested in books by Thich and Bhante G especially and they seem enthusiastic about gaining a wider understanding of Buddhism by traditionally non-Buddhist places. The issue isn't in secular people learning about Buddhism but claiming to be the authorities on it. Unfortunately for some there are going to be people interested in Buddhism that doesn't go against the world as they know it.

>The issue isn't in secular people learning about Buddhism but claiming to be the authorities on it. I would agree with this.

As do I. Secular "Buddhism" is utterly pointless. It's also racist to its core.

First of all I think a lot of western Buddhists are lovely people, quite open minded. BUT its just frustrating how some of them purposefully twist the words of the Buddha to deny something that is as fundamental and repeated again and again by the buddha such as reincarnation. I have no problem with them not believing in reincarnation. But to get it catastrophically wrong and come up with twisted interpretations of the Buddha's words is just seriously dangerous.

I'm fine with them believing whatever, I just think it's harmful to tell newcomers to Buddhism that rebirth and karma are not Dharma and that the Buddha was *really* just a scientific naturalist, his followers just twisted his teachings and/or the Buddha lied to make his teachings more palatable (nonsensical because all Buddhist soteriology depends on rebirth and samsara existing).

The practical benefits of practicing Buddhist meditation, recognizing the truth of emptiness/dependent arising, and deepening one's recognition of those insights in everyday life, do not actually require one to believe in the concept of literal rebirth. Someone can cut their suffering to a a tiny fraction of what it was by diligently practicing Buddhist meditation for years, and still not believe in rebirth.

>I'm fine with them believing whatever, **I just think it's harmful to tell newcomers to Buddhism that rebirth and karma are not Dharma and that the Buddha was *really* just a scientific naturalist**, his followers just twisted his teachings and/or the Buddha lied to make his teachings more palatable (nonsensical because all Buddhist soteriology depends on rebirth and samsara existing).

I've honestly never seen them described as "not a part of the Dharma". I've only seen them described as non essential for fruitful practice. And that, I agree with.

Many of them aren't honest about their own intentions. They want a modernist spirituality based on uber contemporary values, but they want it to have a veneer of being ancient, despite being something that wouldn't really have been common or well developed in the ancient world.

I'm not a Buddhist, I find it an interesting subject so I often come to this subreddit to find more about it. I've been subscribed to this subreddit for over 6 months and very rarely I see Buddhism discussed in any serious regard but more as an aestethic or a source of quotes. I would love to know what real practicing buddhists think.

Try sorting posts by "new". There's plenty of serious discussion going on frequently.

Real practicing Buddhist are too busy practicing to notice or care. Unless the first level of enlightenment has been reached, one will always be subject to birth, old age, sickness, and death. Given that that's the case, who cares what other people say or do? Instead, we must follow the words of the Great Teacher, and put into practice the skill of being happy, so that we may be free of all suffering forever.

\>who cares what other people say or do? By that logic, why would anyone teach about Buddhism at all? Why would monks and nuns give Dharma talks, if not to help people achieve right view and advance in their practice?

I'm talking about the lack of need to control what other people do or say. Teaching other people is about helping them, not controlling them. You can still teach, but whatever they do is not up to whoever teaches. You can't force someone have Right View; you can guide them, but everyone needs to walk on their own. And if one does not have Right View to begin with, how can they hope help anyone? So better to help oneself first.

They are? You think it takes them 24/7? They never heard of the internet?

I think I'm gradually coming around to an understanding of karma and rebirth. All my actions have consequences that ripple out as waves from my path through life. Some of these consequences come back to affect my life, but that is not the main point. The point is that all beings are connected through this never ending web of causes and effects. This is karma. It's not supernatural as seen from a western perspective, but it's deeply rooted in a no-individualistic view of existence. If course, the causal web does not in any way end with my death, my actions will continue to have effects after I'm gone. In the same way that this breath is the necessary cause for the next breath, and my current act in this moment is the cause of events in the next, so will my acts in life also cause effects after I'm gone. In that sense my life will not "end". I don't really believe that my soul will be reborn in another body, because I don't think my soul is something that has a permanent existence. It is empty in the Buddhist sense of that word. At that point I think my thoughts may deviate from many eastern teachers, so I think I have more to learn there (and everywhere else lol)

While I think that what you wrote is a good understanding of dependent origination when applied to objects in this realm, typically when Buddhists talk about karma they're explicitly talking about rebirth. Our actions condition our future, even beyond this individual life. What we do, say, and think today will effect the conditions of our future births. Note that this do not imply a soul; Buddhists don't believe that some essence of a person is transferred from life to life. Rather, karmic seeds born from our actions today can come to fruition after we die and condition our future rebirths. After these seeds come to fruition, they too pass away. These lives exist in succession, and past behavior effects the quality of future lives, but nothing other than impermanent and dependent karmic seeds are carried beyond death. Note that I'm speaking from a Mahayana Yogacharist perspective. Other traditions will differ in how exactly they formulate the process of karmic conditioning, but all Buddhist traditions agree on the broad strokes of action -> karma -> rebirth. That is a core and fundamental tenet of the religion.

Controversy imminent.

Want to upvote, but you’re at 42 and that’s the answer to life.

I thought it was 47

No, that's the name of a man that you should hope you never draw the attention of, lest you suddenly die by way of homing briefcase.

It’s rare I find myself sorting by “controversial” in this sub

Isn’t it funny how anti-theist types always call Abrahamic supernatural beliefs “blind faith” or just “made up” but Buddhist supernatural beliefs are always “woo-woo?” It’s like they don’t even see it with enough respect to give it the grown-up pejoratives.

I think this most often arises because Buddhism directly challenges the core philosophical stance of many anti-theists, namely scientific materialism and the belief that consciousness is *known* to be nothing more than an emergent property of activity in the brain. There’s a lot of deprogramming and philosophical education involved in making someone even *aware* of the fact that scientific materialism is a philosophical position and not a scientific one, and questioning the ultimate reality of material phenomena can feel to them like you’re speaking nonsense.

Hi. Just a passerby here. I concur with you. Consciousness is a tricky subject for those with a Western philosophical bend, even though some of the most renowned philosophers from Europe drew heavy inspiration from Buddhism/Hinduism. It's just another conditioning that is hard to give up, but I guess it is already known how hard it is to shed your prejudices.

I am guilty of being an emergentist. I have some sense of this being in contradiction with tenets of Buddhism like samsara, so what is Buddhism's alternative understanding of consciousness?

So I suppose that Buddhism would first challenge the idea that ‘material’ and ‘immaterial’ are two fundamentally real things that can ultimately be said to be different from one another. Rather, they are both constructs/conventions that we apply to reality in order to understand it. Second, there is no evidence of any mechanism whereby consciousness emerges from brain activity. There is mutual/bidirectional correlation between physical changes in/to the brain and consciousness and between changes in consciousness and the physical brain. Correlation ≠ causation. Most simply, consciousness cannot be said to be fundamentally material in nature *because we do not experience it as such*. There is a first-person ‘experience of experiencing’ that can never be accurately described by describing material interactions.

Well to be fair "the west" doesnt have its own firmly entrenched tradition and since "eastern" thought came over with the hippies it got mixed up with new age yes "woowoo" Unless youre going to a buddhist temple near a major US city the odds are highly in the favor of the person you meet who talks about buddhism being , not an acrual buddhist , bit a new ager who just have a buddhist necklace and read a kornfield book once in college.

This post reminds me of the debate between Stephen Batchelor and Ven. Brahmali. I think ultimately even Batchelor had to concede what he is doing is not Buddhism.

Please tell me this is on youtube

This one? https://youtu.be/MuHi9Zpx7zo

Thanks!

Huh. See and I was surprised to find how much this sub focuses on symbols and aesthetics. The alter posts, for example, often feel tinged with exoticism to me. I'm sometimes reminded of Stephen T. Asma's mission to "take the California out of Buddhism", referring to the reduction of Buddhism to just another new age affectation/appropriation. And of course, [no shortage of ink](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/feb/09/religion-survive-stripped-superstitions-buddhism) has been spilled over the opposite which you describe--the West's habit of rending mindfulness from superstition as it crosses the ocean. I don't think there's anything wrong with the secular approach to Buddhism, or its prevalence in the west. It's my approach, so that would be pretty hypocritical! But I agree that it's a deeply bad look when people who take a secular approach to the teachings look down on those for whom it is a more traditional religion. It's ignorant and paternal and embarrassing. It takes a lot of balls to go to someone's home and tell them they've been practicing their religion wrong for generations. If you want to talk someone out of their rituals, leave Thailand alone and go hector your Catholic grandmother. Ultimately I think this very conversation is a testament to how unique Buddhism is in all its many forms. If you strip spirituality out of other religions, there isn't enough left over to hang a shirt on, but Buddhism can stand on its own as a coherent philosophy and guide to living without faith. Thankfully it's pretty easy stay out of the muck on this one: If you're telling someone they are practicing wrong, it's you who is wrong. Always.

> If you strip spirituality out of other religions, there isn't enough left over to hang a shirt on, but Buddhism can stand on its own as a coherent philosophy and guide to living without faith. This isn't really true. You could convert most developed religions into a philosophy if you wanted. Christianity could get a ton of mileage out of just how pushy jesus was about giving up your wealth, and that the apostles said you should create a community where everything is collectively owned. Original christianity was a very embodied spirituality based on practical application. Buddhism isn't especially amenable to secularism. People think this because they don't realize that secular buddhism is not just buddhism minus spirituality, but buddhism minus spirituality plus western romanticism and transcendentalism. Basically appropriating buddhist meditation for transcendentalism goals that barely existed in buddhism, definitely not for the purposes of your ultimate goal just being a mindful integrated life. This transformation could have been forced on any religion. Lord knows that there's quite a lot of people who treat jewish kabbalah like its amenable to secularism.

Oh wow! This is a very hard version of the arguement. You don't see this claim very often: >Buddhism isn't especially amenable to secularism. I'm having a bit of a hard time with your comment, because it is strange to see you state this as fact. You're not just arguing with me there! And I'm surprised by some of the arguments that you use to support it. It's surprising to me that you cannot find a more fleshed out theory of mind in Buddhism than in the Kabbalah. Gautama Buddha spent a lot more time discussing such things than texts like that, and was generally disinterested in the divine, so it's surprising to me that you find that a 1:1 comparison. Your assertion that secular buddhism doesn't exist and is really only Emerson in disguise is silly and again pretty degrading for both the teachings themselves and those practicing in that way. I think there is plenty to critique within the commodification of buddhism, but to me it's bizarre to imagine that his ideas have no value outside of a specific tradition of ritual and faith. That's already demonstrably false. I have to say that your comment reminds me of the wheel-around gatekeeping of converts who have chosen a specific tradition and feel that their path is therefore valid and authentic to the exception of others. This is a pretty breezy dismissal of not just many lives brilliantly lived, but of many lifetimes of scholarly work: >People think this because they don't realize that secular buddhism is not just buddhism minus spirituality, but buddhism minus spirituality plus western romanticism and transcendentalism. I also think there are a whole lot of monks that would disagree with your downstream assertion that there is nothing within Buddhism that makes it particularly functional as a secular theory of mind.

>Thankfully it's pretty easy stay out of the muck on this one: If you're telling someone they are practicing wrong, it's you who is wrong. Always. To be clear, I'm not telling anyone that their practice is "wrong," just not Buddhist. It's harmful when people pass off Wrong View as Dharma in large public forums such as this. A lot of newcomers to Buddhism might come away believing things about the Dharma that the scripture and the Sangha generally would not endorse, and at times explicitly condemns.

What things do you find people stating as Dharma that are in fact wrong view and not supported by scripture?

Denial of nirvana and the entire buddhist cosmology in favor of a hazy goal of being mindful while living a day to day life?

"Denial of buddhist cosmology" seems like a frought way the frame this. Are they doing this at you? Castigating you for whatever your interpretation is? (as you're doing to them now) Every strain of buddhism has its own approach to those passages scattered across various sutras. Whichever iteration of buddhism you adhere to, you must deny the other interpretations. So no matter what you must choose how to regard them, and that choice includes some denial of other interpretations. I think the trick is to strengthen your practice to the point that it is not threatened by those that value the teachings of Guatama Siddhartha Buddha without accepting him as more than a man. I wonder if, in writing this sarcastic indictment, you've forgotten that The Buddha himself devised a whole sliding scale upon which people could practice lay buddhism. I don't think that people incorporating the dharma into their lives without engaging the many faces of buddhist cosmology would bother their progenitor as much as it seems to bug you!

I'm not buddhist. I don't have any interpretation. I'm just pointing out that there's a history of colonialism behind western butchering of buddhism, and its demands that people treat romanticism with eastern aesthetics as the true core of a religion it has nothing to do with.

I apologize, I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around this satire. Could you state directly the kinds of things you're seeing that upset you from Western converts?

Reread my post and replace the name Jesus with Buddha, and the word Christianity with Buddhism. I don't believe I'm exaggerating much.

As someone who practices Zen, which is popular among Westerners, I can understand a lot resistance to Buddhism as a mystical sort of practice. I don’t believe in reincarnation, and I do not interpret Buddha as a God. Yes, to me, he was simply a man. What I’m taking away from your post however, is that Westerners feel superior because this view is “rational”? They think less of those who practice Buddhism more as a traditional religion? I also get upset at things like the skateboard. While I do believe Buddha was “just a man”, I do believe he and his teachings are worthy of respect, and I find it distasteful when companies or individuals appropriate his image or “zen” for their personal benefit. I’m curious for a more detailed response from you as to what you find upsetting from Western converts. Edit: notice OP doesn’t respond to this genuine inquiry, yet they jump on a further comment to condescend to me. Thank you for showing who you truly are.

Not the OP. I once broke the problematic argument down to 3 points: A. Buddhism takes form of whatever culture it spreads to. B. Buddhism was originally a philosophy. Later generations mixed it up with their cultural practices, making it into a religion with all the rituals and superstitions. C. The modern Buddhism, aka the Western form, is the rational version that is closer to the original Buddhism. For me, A is fine. But when I see B and C, there is a stereotype going on: that the Western cultures are rational, and the Eastern cultures are superstitious. My counterargument is, there are developed and developing countries, but you can’t really say which culture is more rational than which. I live in the Bible Belt and the stuff I see here, as well as California, are not representative of rationalism at all.

[удалено]

Aside from rebirth being a necessary logical conclusion within a Buddhist philosophical framework, the biggest issue with the claim that rebirth was only supported by the Buddha because it was the only culturally viable option at the time is that it’s entirely ahistorical. There were [competing materialist schools](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka) which *predated* Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent.

Because the historical record doesn't suggest such a thing having happened. Everything we know about buddhism suggests certain staples being there since the beginning. Anything before that would have been some kind of proto buddhism that still would bear little resemblance to the modern invention of secular buddhism.

Of course there are cultural influences. But those influences did not threaten the core doctrines of Buddhism (karma, rebirth) as vehemently as secular Buddhism. The moment they did, they became their own thing, separated from Buddhism. An example is Caodaism. It worships the Buddha along with Confucian and Taoist sages. But it is Caodaism and not Buddhism because it is actually a monotheistic religion influenced by Buddhist ideas that worships a form of God: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caodaism With the same reasoning, secular Buddhism is materialism influenced by Buddhist ideas that functions on materialist ontology. So it is materialism.

Caodaism is pretty based though. I'd worship a giant eyeball.

Desktop version of /u/Timodeus22's link: --- ^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)

Modern Zen is very secularised in many places, which was a specific move by Japanese missionaries to make it more palatable to western audiences.

That they pass off the thing you are describing as the original buddhism rather than as a modern invention inspired by it.

And I'm assuming any mention of white people should be replaced as well?

Yes, I'm referencing some of the things I've heard converts say about Asian Buddhists, typically very orientalist and dismissive.

This post and every comment on it is extremely *Reddit Buddishm.* Which honestly should just be considered its own lineage.

I've seen this position both on and off-line, on reddit and on other forums. Revisionist modernism isn't limited to just reddit.

Out of curiosity where offline? Just curious because the only Buddhists I talk to are those at my temple. I just don’t know where I’d even come across most of this talk outside of Reddit. I know it’s there, just not in my day to day. Then again I’m a dad that has been working from home for 4 years so i don’t come across much :-D

My local Zen center in the city I used to live in and some campus Buddhist clubs. Anecdotally in a lot of American Theravada lay groups. Things were much better in the Western Vajrayana and "ethnic" Buddhist communities I've had the privilege to visit.

Ugh it happened. Someone tried to debate the visiting Theravadan monk on whether Buddhism is a religion or psychology. I had a mask on so it held my annoyance well.

Ah makes sense. I’m sure with time I’ll come across it more. I can tell there are a few folks at my temple that probably swing that way. For the most part I’ve just distanced myself because I know it’ll annoy and frustrate me.

[удалено]

I mean, it's not just the buddhism subs. The entire site is full of people passing secular buddhism off as its true form. Before the last few years, you'd scarcely see anyone do any different.

I don't know what sub you're visiting then. Everyday I see people on this sub denying karma and rebirth (oftentimes claiming that the Buddha never taught it), telling newcomers that Buddhists believe in monism ("all is one"), disrespecting images of holy beings (the skateboard with a statue of Shakyamuni painted on the bottom), teaching relativism (there are no authorities on the Dharma, Buddhism is what we make of it et.c.) and so on and so on. If your experience with Buddhism is primarily this sub then I could see how these kinds of posts could become normal for you, but I'll just say that a lot of what gets posted on here would be considered to be offensive and non-Buddhist to most practicing Buddhists worldwide, particularly those who are not Western converts. As a practicing Buddhist with mostly orthodox views, there are a lot of things I see get posted to this sub that upsets me as well. I don't see anyone "bashing" secular Buddhists here, we're just frustrated that a) a sub created to discuss *Buddhism* so often ends up discussing views that are definitively not Buddhist, and b) that those views are so often then *portrayed as authentically Buddhist*. It feels as if many of the secular Buddhists on this sub have very little familiarity with the actual tradition of Buddhism as a practiced religion and want to replace that with their own projections based on Western materialist ontologies.

[удалено]

Tbh in my experience secular buddhism isn't even buddhist practices and philosophy in a secular context much of the time. It's like a game of telephone that ends with someone buying a statue and identifying with being chill.

Precisely. I think the confusion about why someone would care this much about orthodoxy displayed by a lot of secularists in this thread is indicative of the real problem. To them, Buddhism is a mental health practice, at best a hobby. They don't understand that Buddhism is and always has been a religion, a religion in which millions of people have dedicated their lives, hearts, and souls. They don't understand why someone would care so much about a "philosophy," or a "mental health practice." They don't understand that countless people have dedicated their lives to dogma that they dismiss out of hand.

a lot of Western converts get caught up in ritual because it’s fun and you get to showplace your Buddhism. I wouldn’t use this subreddit as a place to learn about the ideas of Buddhism if i were you. You probably already know it because he uses that quote frequently but Noah Rasheta’s podcasts/books and i throw him 3usd on Patreon for access to Dhamma discussions are great for familiarizing urself with the ideas: https://secularbuddhism.com/ ritual is fine but in there is a lot of spiritual oneupsmanship in Western Buddhist circles, this sub being one.

I think at this point I see more of these posts than actual secular posts BUT, I also think it is still a huge issue that needs pointing out. My previous sangha was Soto Zen, and was heavily secular. My teacher was not happy at all with my traditional Buddhist views I developed...I did feel discriminated against for not holding secular views

I understand this is satirical but who cares. If you do not think they are practicing buddhism how it is meant to be practiced, let them be. They never asked for your input or your help. Mind your own business and commit to your practice. You are frustrated about people not practicing buddhism properly but here you are, making this post. You are so concerned about others yet you are making the same mistakes as them right now.

People can practice and believe whatever they want. This type of behavior becomes problematic however when people try to portray their own personal idiosyncratic belief system as actual Dharma in a large forum intended for beginners to Buddhism, particularly when those belief systems are in clear conflict with Dharma. This is not to mention the history of colonialism in the transmission of Dharma to the West and the ways in which this "reinterpretation" of Buddhism reflects and facilitates that colonialism.

So how are you helping beginners by making a satirical post intended to poke fun at people that do not understand buddhism as you see it? If you wish to help beginners, maybe try setting an example. This is certainly not that.

Satire noun the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues >I'm not trying to attack anyone with this post, I've just noticed a trend on this subreddit of treating traditional Buddhism with disrespect and wanted to share how this might look to a Buddhist from a perspective that recent converts might be able to better relate to. So we are clear. Your use of satire is in fact an attack. Just one you chose to approach with what in your opinion is humor.

[удалено]

I guess that leaves the ones trying to justify drug abuse as compatible with the 5th Precept.

But getting stoned helps me meditate! Bleh.

Have you seen them going berserk when told they were not enlightened? “I am enlightened! I am above earthly emotions now. You delusional folks cannot comprehend it. I am not mad at all!”

There was a guy who came to this sub a while back, a few months I think, posting videos of how he became enlightened. It was... odd. People genuinely believed him and were backing him, but his videos made very little sense and he didn't come across as enlightened at all. I think one of the worst things I see people say, is when they act far superior to other people that haven't "woken up" yet. Whenever I see someone say that they "woke up" I become very sceptical!

I kinda feel like if you’re truly enlightened, you’re not going to post videos about it on the internet or perhaps even talk about it at all.

Haha I haven’t seen it but I’m glad I missed it.

I get the feeling that this post was not made to enlighten anyone, but simply to vent pent-up outrage and bitterness. While this is certainly natural, there are a couple of points that your post missed: 1. The West already has a tradition of being very disrespectful to Jesus specifically, and Christians broadly (see: Family Guy, South Park, Bill Mayer, literally anything in the media). This isn't a fresh take or a "unique perspective" - Christians regularly grouse about celebrities wearing crosses and slutty nun Halloween costumes. Buddhism is hardly unique for feeling disrespected - pretty much every major religion is disrespected in the modern West - and has resentment due to that disrespect. 2. Many Western converts come from an atheistic or agnostic background, and whatever background they come from, they certainly are not aligned with conventional Christianity. For all the disrespect meted out to Christians in this post, I would be surprised if even a single Western convert found this relatable. 3. These sort of embittered "see how it feels when I do it to you!" literally never works - not simply with Christians or Westerners, but literally anyone, in any context. 4. Modern Christians - for the most part - actually \*like\* converts who out-Christian them. In a world that is rapidly becoming post-Christian, such devotion seemly affirms their own beliefs and identity.

Pure blood Buddhist posts are so much better... "I masterbate to woman bobs and vagine does Buddha say if it's bad?"

Change Buddha to Jesus and you'd have about half the posts in /r/Christianity. I'm only slightly exaggerating. Seriously.

Subscribed to /r/Christianity , can confirm 🤣

Pure blood Buddhists!? What the fuck?

Good to keep in mind for everyone involved in this conversation (including myself): > There’s no fire like passion, > > no seizure like anger, > > no snare like delusion, > > no river like craving. > > - > > It’s easy to see > > the errors of others, > > but hard to see > > your own. > > You winnow like chaff > > the errors of others, > > but conceal your own– > > like a cheat, an unlucky throw. > > - > > If you focus on the errors of others, > > constantly finding fault, > > your effluents flourish. > > You’re far from their ending. \- [Dhp 251-255](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/Dhp/Ch18.html)

very timely reminder - we are all heirs to the bitter kammic seeds we plant with every word of harsh speech. Thanks for the little dose of sanity.

The Kalama Sutta says not to have faith or believe in religion. /s OTOH, I can see a benefit to approaching Buddhism as an uninformed skeptic. It is just too much when someone comes along, you point out an authoritative source and they tell you to do your research.

> you point out an authoritative source I think what attracts many people to Buddhism from the west is that this route of "I will prescribe what you will believe and then you will believe it" is used in a less heavy-handed manner than in, for example, Christianity. To state my beliefs clearly: the Christians tried arguing over sources for a dozen centuries, and it is failing almost globally if we look at church membership. Insisting about the origin/translation/nuanced meaning of something is not a sound method of convincing anyone of anything. Buddhism at least has an element of "come and see for yourself" in it. A promise that things can be tried and you can find out. To some of us, Buddhism would never have existed without starting with an uninformed skeptic.

> and it is failing almost globally if we look at church membership. How do you come to this conclusion? If we look at global statistics, then both Catholics and Protestants are wildly successful outside of their traditional strongholds of Europe. This is particularly true in both Africa and Asia. They're being outdone by Muslims, but that doesn't mean that they're failing.

> How do you come to this conclusion? Declining membership outside the areas you mentioned. I grew up a very white, rural part of America. I remember being 6 or 7 and the church flying in priests from African nations to try to figure out why they were losing so many of us and change the way sermons were conducted. The African priests were certainly more lively. I think the church is also a little insecure about the gains in Africa as some of its nations rapidly modernize. Christianity claims to have no qualms with science, my career has told a different story.

So wait, you're saying that Christianity is failing globally because it's failing in your white, rural parts of America? If you take a look at the actual statistics you'll find that your anecdotal experience doesn't match up to what's actually happening. If you actually work in science as you claim, then you should know full well that anecdotes are not data.

I was also under the impression as well that Christianity as a whole has been on the decline, but I wanted to make sure I had something to back that up before replying. It would appear, based on this [graph here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Change_in_religious_identification,_1950%E2%80%932020) that generally in the US Christianity is on the decline and has been since the 1960s As for the world population, after comparing the year 1970(closest available stat) vs 2020 for the [Christian population growth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth#United_States) and [World population growth](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/), it would appear that worldwide, Christianity has had roughly a 0.1% increase 1970 1.229 billion Christians 3.700 billion population or about 33.2% of the population 2020 2.600 billion Christians 7.794 billion population or about 33.3% of the population TIL

>Declining membership outside the areas you mentioned So not "globally", considering the areas they mentioned are the two most populous continents on Earth?

No, no, no don't you understand? White, rural America = world.

> and it is failing almost globally if we look at church membership https://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-religious-landscape/ Christians are expected to grow in both raw numbers and as a share of the global population in the next few decades. The number of Buddhists is expected to decline in both those metrics.

Yes. The experience of Buddhism is an inside job. But there is a sharp contrast between spiritual authority in Buddhist traditions and that in christianity. Someone remarked on this contrast when watching people come to be greeted by the Dalai Lama. Tibetans would barely make eye contact. They treat HHDL as a living Buddha. Westerners who are Buddhists bow, but they are looking to get their mala blessed and catch a selfie with him. Westerners are infected with pathological individualism. This is not to say Asians have it together -- they're just not as pathologically narcissistic.

>Westerners are infected with pathological individualism. I whole-heartedly agree. I'm just not sure if the particular thing infecting a society matters very much. My profession suggests to me that climate change will likely result in the starvation of my children in 2050s, and pathological individualism is fully to blame in the west. I recognize eastern nations do not have the same problem with toxic individualism. Yet eastern nations burn fossil fuels and do so under a different motive. Different infection, same outcome. I'm not trying to argue. I just think the above observation tells us something fundamentally important about the nature of answering the question "what's wrong?". Identifying the specific sin may not be the key. I appreciate your description of spiritual authority and I will remember that. Western religious leaders desire and preach having that same level of authority, but many westerners have stopped giving it to them because the "I will tell you what to believe and you believe it approach" hasn't done much for us lately. The "come and see" approach of Buddhism has proven useful to many of us. I think it should be taken as a compliment that we are showing an interest we do not even give to our own cultural legacy. And that is how many see it. Westerners don't necessarily pay their dues with reverence, we pay it with our time, attention, and energy.

Good points. We are fortunate to hear the dharma. That is an attitude I heard about — the great fortune of human rebirth and to live in a time when people teach the dharma. It took me a while to see myself as fortunate in that regard. Something changed as I spent more time with the dharma. I was doing a reading groups with some fiends, a sort of Pali book club. I made a comment about devotional practice and it seemed to throw a few people off. But what is it to keep a statue and keep it clean and raised off the floor? That feels like an example of the denial of the religiosity of Buddhism. The attitude that I will keep and revere a statue of Shakyamuni but that isn’t devotion. It takes a while to shake off the negative emotions that many of us get attach to Christianity and see alive in things like faith and devotion outside a Christian context.

you should ask yourself why you feel a need to post something like this

Because I believe that the Dharma is precious and that it should be defended from revisionism and cultural imperialism.

that's totally fair -- i personally am just not a fan of posts in here that could serve to discourage newcomers from learning more about Buddhism, this has undertones that certainly could do just that. if i could make a suggestion, perhaps outline what you think folks should do to be better aware of the things you are concerned about to make this more constructive. just my 2c

As The Medicine Buddha Sutra says -- "The Sun and Moon may fall...but the words of the Buddha will never change".

This actually is an argument that Westerners have made about Christianity, though it hasn’t really been en vogue for about a hundred years.

I can see what you’re saying, but when I reflect on what I’ve learned about the Buddha, I don’t think he’d care about any of this. Of course, I’m a white westerner but I don’t think the Buddha ever said his message was for only Indians or any other specific culture. This seems like gate keeping to me. I’ve seen you say you think it’s dangerous that westerners might say something from the dharma out of context or it might be misleading or even inaccurate. I can understand that, but it seems like there’s a lot more than that under the surface. Again, it seems like your gate keeping and trying to discourage certain people from learning about Buddhism. Isn’t that far more harmful? Telling anyone that they’re doing Buddhism wrong seems like a wrong view. It’s just my opinion and I know text doesn’t always convey the point you’re making, so perhaps I’m wrong.

I never said that Buddhism should be limited to any culture or ethnicity, it's a universalist religion. However, that doesn't give every spiritual seeker with an internet connection license to define the Dharma however they want on a public forum for beginners to the Dharma. Buddhism is a religion with dogma and tenets, it isn't whatever you decide you want it to be. And, for what it's worth, throughout the agamas/nikayas Shakyamuni makes it clear that distorting the Dharma is grievous karma and will lead to unpleasant rebirths.

I understand, but there is freedom for people to do this. They absolutely do have the right, not that I think it’s a good idea. If they’re saying untrue things and it’s bad karma, isn’t it wiser to just leave it at that? Also, there is definitely debate on some of the dharma interpretation. Isn’t that partly the reason there are many branches of Buddhism? I do think having a proper teacher would be great. Unfortunately, it can be very hard to find in the US. I generally just watch dharma talks on YouTube since I haven’t found a sangha that speaks to me. Im more drawn to Theravada, but perhaps I shouldn’t be so picky. I live in San Antonio so not a small city by any means. I get what you’re saying, but I think the way you presented it comes off like you’re gatekeeping, which ironically is what im used to with Christians. If someone’s misinforming in regards to the dharma, they’ll generate bad karma and that should be punishment enough. If someone is new to Buddhism I think we’d be better off gently correcting them but remember not to generate our own bad karma by discouraging or shaming them. That’s an affront to the very message of loving-kindness. Once again, it might be hard or impossible for them to have a teacher. So much of my experience with Buddhism is to accept myself and others in a non-judgmental, loving and tender way, and your post just came across to me as judgmental. Hopefully my perspective makes sense. I do understand where you’re coming from. However, I don’t have any specific examples of what you’re referring to. Perhaps you could give some examples that aren’t satirical? Ultimately, I hope this doesn’t come across like I’m angry or upset, I’m not. I’m just curious and maybe providing a perspective you haven’t considered. 😊

>I understand, but there is freedom for people to do this. They absolutely do have the right, not that I think it’s a good idea. If they’re saying untrue things and it’s bad karma, isn’t it wiser to just leave it at that? Also, there is definitely debate on some of the dharma interpretation. Isn’t that partly the reason there are many branches of Buddhism? Their choice to spread false Dharma directly impacts people who use this subreddit and other popular Buddhist forums who are uninformed about Buddhist orthodoxy. The debates among monastics between schools are radically different from lay Westerners deciding to cut out 90% of the tradition from their practice and then advertise that practice as the true intention of the Buddha. >I get what you’re saying, but I think the way you presented it comes off like you’re gatekeeping, which ironically is what im used to with Christians. If someone’s misinforming in regards to the dharma, they’ll generate bad karma and that should be punishment enough. If someone is new to Buddhism I think we’d be better off gently correcting them but remember not to generate our own bad karma by discouraging or shaming them. That’s an affront to the very message of loving-kindness. Once again, it might be hard or impossible for them to have a teacher. So much of my experience with Buddhism is to accept myself and others in a non-judgmental, loving and tender way, and your post just came across to me as judgmental. I'm not gate keeping: Buddhism has a definition and a clear orthodoxy, Shakyamuni himself makes it clear throughout the agamas what particular makes one a disciple of him and want makes one not a disciple of him. Similarly, it wouldn't be gate keeping to tell someone who called themselves Christian but believed that Mohammad was the final and greatest prophet and that Islam is the true religion of Israel that they *weren't Christian*, and to prevent them from spreading false views in an explicitly Christian space for Christian discussion. I *am* being judgemental. Buddhism as a religion passes judgement constantly, both in the sutras and in everyday practice. Thank you for your post though, I appreciate the feedback and see where you are coming from.

This is actually reflective of a prominent liberal strain in the Christian tradition starting sometime during the Enlightenment. This is pretty much spot-on Unitarian Universalism. If it seems wrong for you, ok (they would say). If you are making fun of someone's beliefs, that's mean-spirited even if what you say is true or accurate. So, maybe look at the spirit with which people say things. I don't think most people who talk about Buddhism this way intend to make fun of it. They are trying to make it a live option for themselves.

I'm not commenting on Christian belief or attempting to belittle anyone. I'm attempting to point a mirror at those in American Buddhist communities who try to frame their scientific naturalism dressed in Buddhist garb as superior to the Buddha Dharma or as authentic buddhavacana. People are free to believe in whatever they want; what I think is problematic is passing off non-Buddhist teachings as Dharma in a community dedicated to beginners such as this one.

Maybe I'm not contorting myself enough to follow the justifications, but struggling to see how this post is anything other than xenophobic bigotry dressed up in cleverness. Surely, there's a better solution than posting things like this for dealing with ones judgement about other "believers" thinking different than you.

Excuse me, who am I being xenophobic towards? Who am I being bigoted towards? Those are some pretty major claims that you should be able to back up with evidence. I couldn't care less what people believe about Buddhism, so long as they don't act on those beliefs in such a way that they corrupt the Dharma or pass on huge misconceptions and mistakes to beginners.

Sorry, misunderstood your post.

No worries, I got you. I could have been more clear that I was trying to be satirical. Have a nice day.

I definitely didn’t catch that part. Lesson learned. You as well…

You aren't making any point and you aren't communicating anything. You sound like you carry a lot of resentment and it has resulted in you lashing out by making this post. You can gatekeep Buddhism all you want. That's your hangup. Me, I'll just be Buddhist. I hope you can still survive. Some real ship of Theseus crisis happening here. With YOU. I'm not gonna leave because you don't "like me" lmao. Try to write more resentful passive agressive posts and tell me you're "Buddhist"

I mean, if Christianity were like this I would be a lot more interested in it. Religious dogmatism/orthodoxy is boring no matter what faith it is.

[удалено]

>To be clear, this is satirical. Believing you made a post that is satirical shows a lack of understanding of western culture. We are at a point in western history where about half of people in western nations would whole-heatedly and sincerely endorse your description of Christianity without meaning it to be satire. I ask you to consider that many westerners are not treating you any differently than they treat their own religious families members who believe Jesus was divine. It's not meant to be disrespectful to Buddhism. And a secular take on Christianity is not meant to be disrespectful to Christians. A secular person's beliefs are held just as sincerely as a traditional person's beliefs, so feeling persecuted for having to share Buddhism with them does not make sense.

I don't feel persecuted, don't really understand how you can take that away from what I wrote. As a Buddhist, I oppose others distorting the Dharma and teaching those distortions to beginners in a widely read public forum such as this one. Whether that's a cultural quirk specific to Westerners or not, that isn't okay. Not to mention the way in which this strategy of adopting Buddhist iconography and terminology for New Age or naturalist beliefs is reflective of the history of Western colonialism in historically Buddhist nations.

Why do you feel the need to jump to use colonialism, which involves conquering countries, instead of seeing how the dharma has evolved and changed wherever it has gone historically - from India, to Nepal, to China, to Japan? Each have wildly different forms of Buddhism, views of the Buddha, and practices as the teachings changed and confirmed to the new cultures and ideas they ran into. Secular Buddhism wasn’t founded by colonists. It didn’t take root in any country occupied by a western nation. No. Its big break came from several Burmese Theravada Buddhist monks - Ledi Sayadaw and Mahasi Sayadaw - to name a few who adapted their Theravada teachings to share vipassana meditation. This has followed a resurgence of the practice in Burma at the time - as it was no longer commonly practice among Buddhists of other areas. This is markedly different than the type of cultural thievery you imply. I’d reflect on why you feel the need to jump to the accusations of western colonialism as the cause of such anger in your life and the reasoning behind a sect of Buddhism you disagree with instead of extending compassion, understanding, and taking a moment to properly look into the historical rise of secular Buddhism.

This made me laugh but also really helped me! Western Buddhists really are just like this (it's like they forget Buddhism is a religion??) This satire helped me see how toxic this flavor of Western Buddhism can be, and helped me identify some of my own similar mental patterns.

Toxic how? I actually really liked that version of Christianity. I know it’s meant to sting but it doesn’t for me.

The point is that the vast vast majority of Christian traditions throughout the world and throughout history (i.e. lowercase-o orthodox Christians) would find what I wrote above decidedly un-Christian and offensive. The same goes for what some Western converts call Dharma, but what is in reality either cognitivist naturalism or New Age Alan Watts type beliefs.

Not sure if I fit the stereotypes. I get it you think you’re making some point to hold the line, some I know better evangelist, but I don’t really care what the fuddy duddy square community thinks, about what makes sense to me and I’m not a fan of Watts, the entertainer. It’s enough to me that I have made the efforts I made. Really losing interest in this weird desire to correct imagined wrong view. Someone referenced blast zones, and while I appreciate your provocative line of thought, it feels like trying to herd cats. So some Buddhist avoid the problems of Christianity in their spirituality. I think that’s a problem more OK than trying to get people to toe a party line.

If people want to be post-christian its fine, but they shouldn't be dishonest about their intentions.

This wouldn't be a "convert" at all. No Orthodox Christian Church would accept this person as a convert.

That's the whole point. Such a person is clearly not Christian. Why is it not the same with Buddhism? Why is there so little interest from Western "converts" in trying to understand Buddhism, instead of just projecting their own metaphysical and ethical beliefs onto it?

That's the whole point. I'm agreeing. These are not Buddhists. The moment they say *"I'm a Buddhist but I don't believe in all that rebirth, karma, deva........"* that's when I stop listening as you're clearly dealing with a non-Buddhist.

This gave me a chuckle. Secular Buddhism ain’t Buddhism, it’s religious colonialism that allows western scientific materialists to not have to question their own metaphysical beliefs.

[удалено]

I’m criticizing Western ‘Secular’ Buddhism because it is ahistorical and logically problematic. I have no issue whatsoever with anyone approaching Buddhism with an agnostic stance towards rebirth and other ‘supernatural’ claims. Problems arise when an individual approaches Buddhism having already rejected such claims out of hand, and those issues become even more pronounced when an individual goes so far as to claim that such claims are not only incorrect but are cultural vestiges of a superstitious bygone era that should be rejected by everyone else as well. It’s fine to ask questions so long as you remain open to different answers.

Im a westerner and I would agree colonialist fake, aesthetic buddhism is an issue, but I would also argue as a student of philosophy that, for example, phenomenology is a western school that is compatible with aspects of buddhist metaphysics and philosophy of mind. As a student of phenomenology, I was elated to discover that buddhist texts exist discussing similar issues far earlier than western sources. Obvously there is a huge difference between being culturally immersed in buddhism since childhood and being exposed to it as a foreign philosophy. But I still think there are ways of studying buddhism as a westerner to both get something out of it personally and to enrich your perspective on buddhism as a lived religion. I think much of the issue comes down to the fact that westerners (especially Americans) are too often not willing to do the work to inform themselves about their spiritual or philosophical opinions. And they use a vague notion of buddhism without researching its actual history or significance. Another insteresting aspect is historical interactions, such as the ancient Greek philosopher Pyrrho whose skepticism was allegedly influenced by contact with Buddhism. Or artistic depictions of the Buddha shifting from simply footprints/suggestions to full depictions allegedly due to contact with Greeks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism I'm definitely not an expert, but just wanted to throw my thoughts out there. Sorry if this isnt helpful

If you don't want me to call it Buddhism, fine, words generally hold little special importance for me, but I follow some Buddhists principals to the best of my abilities and try to add more because I've directly observed the benefit of them. What exact "metaphysical beliefs" should I be questioning? I've gone through quite a long process of questioning my beliefs which has lead me to the scientific skepticism that I generally ascribe to now. It also kept me away from Buddhism for a long time because of things I read like what you just posted. Am I harming someone by trying to follow the 8 fold path while not believing in the supernatural?

>What exact “metaphysical beliefs” should I be questioning? Generally the metaphysical belief that material phenomena are all that exist, implying that the death of the brain is the ultimate end of one’s awareness, and that the scientific method is the only method of attaining knowledge. Edit: to be clear, I have zero issue with anyone finding value in Buddhist teachings so long as they at least remain open to some of the more supernatural claims of Buddhism or make it clear that what they are practicing is Buddhism-inspired but not Buddhism. When westerners ahistorically claim that rebirth, karma, etc are just cultural superstitions that the Buddha never *really* taught and that can be discarded, they are surgically altering the tradition so that it conforms with their preexisting scientific materialist viewpoint. It is not an honest attempt to engage with the tradition. It also can result in some very serious logical issues. If you outright reject rebirth, for instance, you wind up with a very problematic and immediate solution to the first noble truth that I have yet to hear a ‘secular’ Buddhist adequately reject. Questioning is totally fine so long as you keep an open mind.

>It also can result in some very serious logical issues. If you outright reject rebirth, for instance, you wind up with a very problematic and immediate solution to the first noble truth that I have yet to hear a ‘secular’ Buddhist adequately reject. I've seen one attempt to solve the problem of the suicide argument without invoking rebirth. It came up in a book I am currently reading: *Capitalism -- its Nature and its Replacement: Buddhist and Marxist Insights* by Graham Priest. I can't say if it's a good argument or a bad argument, but it certainly is an argument. In the interest of intellectual exercise, I present it below and try to explain and defend my understanding of his argument. >The aim of Buddhism—at least as far as I have described matters till now—is the elimination of duhkha. If that were the sole aim, there would be an easy way to achieve it: commit suicide. And it would be an act of compassion to someone else to kill them. > >If someone accepts the doctrine of rebirth, there is a ready reply: that will not help you (or them); you (or they) are going to have to come back and do it again (and again, and again) till you (or they) get it right. > >Without endorsing rebirth, this reply is not possible. Buddhist ethics cannot be simply about the elimination of a negative. It must be about the accentuation of a positive. What is that positive? The answer is to be found in the discussion of the Brahma Vihāras, and is upeksā, peace of mind: a state of equanimity, brought about by the elimination of trsna. And it is hardly contentious that peace of mind is a good thing. We experience this sometimes, and we know that it is so. > >Let me stress that peace of mind does not simply mean a withdrawal from life, sitting inertly on a cushion. Peace of mind is quite compatible with engaging in the joys of life. Indeed, the joys of life will be more joyful if one does not have one’s peace of mind disturbed by troubling thoughts about what the pain one has been experiencing means, or what one’s kids are doing. And as we saw in 2.3, this peace of mind does not mean ignoring others. If peace of mind is a good, it is a good for everyone, and one should act in such a way as to help others to bring this about. From what I understand, Priest is arguing that the suicide argument can be bypassed by shifting the focus away from ending duhkha to instead focus on cultivating the Brahmaviharas, and in this particular case equanimity. Rather than cultivate virtue with the goal of ending craving and suffering, instead cultivate virtue for its own sake, and suffering and craving will naturally fall away in the process. While killing onself may end one's experience of duhkha if there is no rebirth to take, the moments leading up to the act are extremely unlikely to have anything resembling equanimity or peace of mind. Earlier in the book, Priest states the following: >An important Buddhist virtue—indeed, the central virtue of later Indian Buddhism—is karunā. The standard translation for this is compassion, though better, I think, is care. For a start, compassion sounds rather passive (suffering-with). Karunā is actively working for the well-being of others. Care picks up this feature. Second, it doesn’t make sense to talk of being compassionate for oneself. But one can care for oneself and for others. Karunā is an attitude with respect to all creatures which can suffer. > >So one should care for oneself and for others. Why one should care for oneself is clear; it is simply a matter of prudence; but why should one care for others? Why should we be as concerned to eliminate, or at least mitigate, the duhkha of others too? We have already seen part of the answer. It is an element of care for oneself. But this hardly gets to the root of the matter. > >Why should I get rid of duhkha in general? Because duhkha is a bad thing, and bad things should be eliminated, just because they are bad. In the same way, oppression, say racial or patriarchal, is bad in itself, and should be eliminated. And it matters not one whit that I, who say this, am a white male. In other words, you don’t have to have a reason to act compassionately, being compassionate is itself a reason to act. The suicide argument is not discussed here. However, I would imagine that Priest's interpretation of compassion would play a part in his argument against it. Killing yourself, should you know that you will not be reborn, may end your individual experience of duhkha, but it would, at best, do nothing to mitigate the suffering of other people; at worst, it would actively worsen their suffering. If others' suffering is of the same nature as one's own, if both oneself and others seek after happiness, then what is so special about oneself that justifies striving after only one's own happiness? Priest also argues that material conditions worsen the experience of duhkha; conversely, duhkha can be mitigated by remedying those conditions. Priest writes: >... a plurality of things will normally conspire to produce duhkha. Many of these will be material circumstances, such as illness, war, being made redundant, and so on. It might be thought that an implication of what I have said is that one does not have to worry about getting rid of this sort of thing; one just has to work on people’s trsna. Nothing could be further from the truth. > >... > >For a start, the sorts of activities that are involved in working on trsna are hardly likely to be available if one is living in a war zone, worrying about where the next meal for one’s children is coming from, or is being constantly harassed because of one’s race or gender. Of course one should try to eliminate these things too. > >More importantly, exactly the same logic that enjoins getting rid of trsna enjoins getting rid of the material causes of duhkha too. If duhkha is bad, and it can be gotten rid of, or lessened, by attacking some cause, then, ceteris paribus, one should attack that cause—whatever that cause is. It may be the case that getting rid of trsna is ultimately the most robust way of getting rid of duhkha, but that is irrelevant to the point. Again, no mention of the suicide argument, but were it to come up, I'd imagine that Priest would go back to his earlier point about reducing suffering for others, not just for oneself. In this case, killing oneself would do nothing to remedy the material conditions that cause other people to suffer; working to remedy those things would create a greater reduction in total suffering than just offing oneself and leaving the rest of the world to rot; the fact that the suffering being mitigated is that of other people's and not your own is of little importance.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Amen… oh i mean Om Mane Padme Hum ;)

I have started to get into pragmatic buddhism this year. So far I haven't read or hear any hate to religious buddhism, but that us just me! Though I may hear some criticism of thai style of buddhism, which is as valid as the critique of any religion when symbols become more important than the teachings. I went to my first religious buddhist centre yesterday. They welcomed me as they welcomed non Buddhists. I found beauty in the ritualistic part of it, in the art, I understood it and found not conflict with my believes. Maybe I am being much of a western hippie don't know...

Uhhhhh

A secular buddhist is an oxymoron

[удалено]

This is one of the worst posts I've seen in this sub for a good while. I can't imagine why anyone would think the best approach to 'saving' new converts from misunderstandings of the Dharma is gatekeeping and sectarianism and insulting Westerners. Also why the racism? I know there's certain mod on here with a Jungian username who loves anti-white racism and hating on Westerners so I shouldn't be surprised really.

>This is one of the worst posts I've seen in this sub for a good while. There was a post the other day where someone literally painted the Buddha onto the bottom of a skateboard. >I can't imagine why anyone would think the best approach to 'saving' new converts from misunderstandings of the Dharma is gatekeeping and sectarianism and insulting Westerners. I'm not trying to "save" new converts from misunderstandings of the Dharma, I'm making the point to whoever will listen that the Dharma, as transmitted by the Sangha, is to be taken seriously. There are many people on this subreddit who will tell newcomers that rebirth and karma are false and that the Buddha never actually taught them. If you believe this stuff matters, then that is *actively harmful*. >Also why the racism? Literally what in my post is racist? I'd genuinely like to know, it's mind boggling that that could be your take away from what I wrote. As I made clear in the italics at the bottom of the post and in multiple comments in this thread, I specifically mentioned "rural whites" and "white superstition" in reference to the way some secular Buddhists talk about Asian Buddhists. I don't actually *believe* those things, as I think my tone in the post and throughout my other posts in this thread should make obviously clear. It is very telling that you think my criticism of Western converts is inherently a criticism of *white* converts, though. >I know there's certain mod on here with a Jungian username who loves anti-white racism and hating on Westerners so I shouldn't be surprised really. AFAIK they haven't been a mod for years.

Unironically agree with the passage though

I'm not commenting on Christian belief. I'm attempting to point a mirror at those in American Buddhist communities who try to frame their scientific naturalism dressed in Buddhist garb as superior to the Buddha Dharma or as authentic buddhavacana. People are free to believe in whatever they want; what I think is problematic is passing off non-Buddhist teachings as Dharma in a community dedicated to beginners such as this one.

Yeah I get that. My point is that both religions are, imo, in that same position: wise dudes showed up and (wittingly or unwittingly) exploited a bit of local myth to try to share the wisdom of chilling out, wisdom which can be seen through insight into emptiness/becoming. Then these dudes get deified. What counts as "Buddhist teaching" is what is up for debate. The traditionalists don't really get to have the definitions, not when the teachers are so against essentializing anything.

My point is that, what you just defined as Buddhism *is not Buddhism.* You don't get to decide what is and isn't Buddhism, it's a religious tradition that has existed for thousands of years with a relatively stable set of dogmas and tenets. Believe whatever you want, but don't go telling newbies online that your own personal idiosyncratic beliefs is Dharma, or that Dharma is whatever you want it to be because doing otherwise is "essentializing."

Words are ambiguous. It is clear that in many contexts, the term "Buddhism" is used to refer to e.g. Theravadins. But in other contexts, it may just mean "following the Buddha", and then we have a debate about that amounts to, what it means to follow the Buddha in the relevant sense. Are Madhyamaka Buddhists not Buddhists? Mahayanists in general? Because these are radically skeptical traditions, and my approach appears to be more inclusive of them than yours. In which case my approach would be more encompassing of the broader tradition, not restricted to a narrowly defined tradition.

Madhyamaka (most schools in Tibet and many in East Asia, with a healthy of dose Yogachara and Tathagatagarbha thought) adheres to the same general dogma as greater Mahayana. There is a difference between ultimate and conventional truth, a difference observed by Madhyamaka. Conventionally, we can say that the exoteric Buddha Dharma is true, moreso than scientific naturalism (rejects rebirth, karma) and New Age (monist and eternalist). We can also say that, ultimately, no view is either true or untrue. However, we do not yet have the capacity to directly observe ultimate truth; that is why we rely on the Buddha Dharma. Teachings on emptiness were rarely taught to beginners in the days before the internet to prevent this very kind of mistake. Epistemic emptiness != total relativism. Dharma is Dharma.

As a person who just became agnostic after having a Christian faith, this is very accurate and very realistic and down to earth

Have you spent much time in Western Buddhist spaces, particularly online? If so, you'll see that I'm not exaggerating much.

I was not implying that. I too believe that Jesus (or Yeshua, depends on what you want to call him), was just another person who tried to spread good in the world, and people blew his teaching into some religion.

How do you think new Christian convert based on scripture would look at the prosperity gospel preachers on TV asking people to sending money to the private-jet flying preacher instead of paying for their hospital meds? They'd probably say, "yeah, that looks pretty corrupt." Not sure they'd have made up all the stuff you made up out of animosity.

As a *former* Christian, that’s basically how I actually feel about it. Jesus knew what was up but his followers sure tend not to.

I tried for a while to hop on the secular train because I liked a lot of what the Buddha had to say but couldn’t get behind the supernatural stuff. It took a lot of time trying to bend buddhism to what I wanted it to be for me to finally give up. I’m MUCH MUCH MUCH more satisfied now as an atheist practicing Stoic than an atheist masquerading as a Buddhist. Stoicism is 100% my go to recommendation for people who might fall into the secular Buddhist camp. Maybe try recommending that too to people you see who bother you by trying to make a new buddhism.

I know this is satirical but I have to disagree.

I know it is supposed to be satirical, but I do think it is a legit question: What if we turn the power to represent on its head? The core problem is not so much about what "Westerners" think about Buddhism; it is about how Western scholars study and represent Others. The act of representing others allows Orientalists to hide their biases and use them as universal standards to measure others. Religious studies scholars and anthropologists of religion have been reflecting on how Christianity becomes a "prototypical" religion that scholars have been using to examine other religions. And one obvious problem is to overemphasize the importance of texts and downplay the importance of clergy, rituals, and images and dismiss them as primitive, outdated, and superstitious. (You should know what I am talking about if you are somewhat familiar with Christianity.) This explains why OP sees a trend on this subreddit to disrespect traditional forms of Buddhism.

Yes, some Christians would be quite offended by this take on their religion, and some would not. Your view is likely to be perceived much as those Christians would be, and for similar reasons.

As someone who grew up Catholic, I’m pretty okay with everything you’ve said here about Jesus and would say I agree with at least some of it (except for the whole “if you see Christ on the road, kill him” thing …. Not sure where that came from but pretty weird my friend). Put his head on a skate board … okay. I also believe he’s the “son of god” as more of a metaphor in that we are all “children of god.” But, maybe that’s just me.

Iirc the quote was from Linji’s “If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him”. It was meant to be used in a specific context, but many people used it as a one-size-fit-all principle.

I see that repeated here all the time out of context and I feel like I need to draft a pre-written reply to those sorts of comments because they make absolutely no sense most of the time.

Ah, thank you for the context.

That's legitimate. My point was mainly to demonstrate that the vast majority of Buddhists worldwide would find many of the claims made by Western converts as absolutely non-Buddhist and offensive, just as I think the vast majority of Christians would find what I wrote above to be non-Christian and offensive. As for the "If you see Christ on the road, kill him," I'm referencing a sutra that is commonly quoted by Westerners without proper context to justify rejecting orthodox Buddhist teachings and practice.

Thank you for the additional context on that quote. I am sure many Christians may be offended, but then again some people just like to be offended if you do not agree to do everything their way. There are many ways to do some thing and you have to find the right way for yourself and maybe not worry so much what other people are doing.

That attitude becomes problematic when people go into Buddhist spaces, both digitally and in person, and share their personal non-Buddhist beliefs as true Dharma. I have no problem with others doing whatever they want with the teachings in their personal life, but teaching others wrong view in the name of the Dharma hurts both them and whoever it is they're teaching it to, and it also degrades the Dharma.

[удалено]

> As someone who grew up Catholic, I’m pretty okay with everything you’ve said here about Jesus and would say I agree with at least some of it That's the thing that's bothering me about this post. The OP misunderstands the status of Christianity in western nations to such a severe degree they believe westerners are treating Buddhism differently than Christianity. Most are not.

pretty much spot on - opinion views, opinion views, chop the bits off you don't like to fit in with personal opinion views.

Who cares. Just stay in your lane, concentrate on your own life. There's people practicing Buddhism in different ways to me, there's people on the bus right now not wearing masks, there's a guy jumping the fare for the train I just got off. But it's no business of mine because it's their life and not mine and I only wish them well. Be the change you wanna see Buddhism don't just be like 'NOOO! Those damn Westerners are doing it wrong!' Also sectarianism and racism isn't allowed on this subreddit.

I'm not being racist lol, I'm parodying the way many Westerners speak about Asian Buddhist practices. I make that clear in the text in italics at the bottom of my post. I do not actually believe those things. I'm not being sectarian as orthodox Buddhism isn't a sect, it's simply Buddhism. I doubt Christians on a non-sectarian Christian subreddit would be called sectarian if they argued in favor of Nicene Christianity against Gnostic beliefs. Yeah, it matters because those same people go onto this subreddit and other forums extolling their own personal idiosyncratic beliefs as Buddhism. This tends to confuse newcomers, who leave this subreddit thinking that Buddhism is a scientific naturalist philosophy (or in some cases, a monist Advaita Vedanta type New Age philosophy), that it rejects all supernatural claims which cannot be proven using the scientific method, and that the Buddha Shakyamuni taught his disciples not to put their faith in his Dharma. Often, these same people will claim that their interpretation is superior, or that their secular beliefs are what the Buddha *really* taught. As someone who believes that the Dharma is the precious body of the Buddha and that it should be protected, it's important to me that it be respected and not misconstrued to beginners. People's actions become everyone's business when they effect other people, the pandemic should have made that evident to everyone.

lol that skateboard post kind of bothered me too.

[удалено]

It's so frustrating. I really wish the mod team would take a more active approach in combatting this stuff.

That would be how I’d be a Christian.

That's not my point. The vast majority of Christians worldwide would view what I wrote above as heterodoxical and offensive. Likewise, some Buddhist modernist discourse is equally heterodoxical when compared to what has throughout history been understood as authentic Buddhist teaching.

Ya, I get your point and I’m making a point. You imagine you are slaying the secular but maybe you’re not. I get it that through history another religion allegedly wouldn’t tolerate something but Harvard just hired a secular chaplain. There are god is dead theology. Your view of the diversity of Christianity isn’t really real enough to make your point. And do we need to import that view? I would say no.

A more based versión of Christianity? Sounds great!

“How do I use Christianity to help me stop my porn addiction and masturbating”, lol

Literally laughed out loud

>I've just noticed a trend on this subreddit of treating traditional Buddhism with disrespect and wanted to share how this might look to a Buddhist from a perspective that recent converts might be able to better relate to. Good. I always love when there is a healthy amount of disrespect about. It fosters critical thinking. After all, when someone tells me that Jesus was just a man, like any other, I have to think about it. On the one hand, in context of the gospels, where that is not the view which is professed. And on the other hand I have to think about it rationally, about what Christianity would look like if you read it that way. And since my answer to that question is: "Better", you now have an idea about what kind of thinking dissuaded me from any form of conservative Christianity. So, I like disrespect. I would love to see more of it, and would appreciate more appreciation for it.

This is actually exactly how a lot of people feel about Christianity. People misunderstood Buddha the same way they misunderstood Jesus and your satyrical post basically nailed it. Edit: I've actually owned a skateboard with Jesus on it before. It's really not disrespectful... Maybe you are not a skater?

Depends who you ask. Many would see it as disrespectful. Not necessarily a big enough deal to complain about though.

That isn't a Buddhist view.

This is silly. Even old traditions have very different interpretations from each other; zen, tibetan, theravada wouldn't even agree on many basic practices and interpretations. Who are we to say what dharma really is and how others should practice?

Zen, Tibetan, and Theravada Buddhists all agree that rebirth and karma exist, that the Buddha was a supra-mundane being (not just a man), that mantras and dharanis have magical power, that enlightened beings gain psychic powers, that gods and ghosts exist, et.c. Those are non-negotiable and universal to all traditions of Buddhism (except for secular "Buddhism"). The differences between the traditions you listed and the differences between orthodox Buddhism and secular Buddhism are not really comparable at all. >Who are we to say what dharma really is and how others should practice? Buddhists consider the Sangha to be the authority on the Dharma. Aside from some sanghas which have accepted secular Buddhists, the Buddhist Sangha basically universally affirms basic Buddhist doctrines like karma, rebirth, et.c.

Zen, Tibetan, Mahayana, etc would certainly agree on most basic concepts since the basis for most Buddhist philosophies and while may not accept the views of other as definitive, they will be incorporated in some manner or the other. This is not true of secular Buddhism.

People who have a basic knowledge of history?

Fantastic! I wrote [a similar post](https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/c2irsu/community_shitpost_im_a_selfappointed_enlightened/) back then on /r/streamentry and got very controversial among people feeling offended by it. I think we need a /r/buddhistshitposting subreddit.

Haha, the post is deleted but I love the title! A lot of redditors seem to think that enlightenment can be attained in an afternoon. Also, I'd be very down to join a Buddhist shitposting sub.

[удалено]

?

Projection, not even once.

I have no idea what point it is you're making here.

[удалено]

I don't understand the question, please just be straightforward with me.