That's the impression I get. On "the other side", for example, is the New Kadampa Tradition.
s.
Interfaith Practice and the Dalai Lama
- Thread starter path_of_one
- Start date
That's the impression I get. On "the other side", for example, is the New Kadampa Tradition.
s.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Guess what tradition the Dalai Lama was raised with, Snoopy.
Guess? I hope you're not ass-u-ming that I don't know.
I can see the point that I think you are making though; open arms to non Buddhists but the exit for the "wrong" Buddhists?
s.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Thanks for letting me do all the explaining here, Snoopy.Guess? I hope you're not ass-u-ming that I don't know.
For the record, the Dalai Lama's lineage includes New Kadampa Tradition. By renouncing it, he has in effect renounced his own lineage. This undercuts his authority because in Buddhism a lama's authority is dependent on the lama's lineage.
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
I guess my point is that interfaith work is different from ecumenical or intrafaith work. I've seen this happen in the Christian church.
Quite a few liberal Christian churches are very tolerant of other religions, even including them in interfaith discussion and (in certain cases) ritual. However, the same churches or denominations might balk at including certain self-identified Christians, because then there is a question of the "proper" way to be a Christian.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, but I see this is all different religions and it doesn't surprise me that Buddhism has it too.
There is more tension and intolerance the more another person is sort-of like you but not-exactly like you, because this is more of a threat to the underlying structure and doctrinal and practical stability of that religion than religions that are clearly very little like your own and can be understood as their own systems. Generally, there is an attempt within most large organized religions to retain a sense of authenticity and validity based on various authorities and traditions. This means scrutinizing stuff that comes about that is different from the norm and deciding what gets to remain within and what gets tossed out.
So far as I can tell, if this is never done, any religion would naturally become so diverse as to be somewhat meaningless as a category. I suppose there is a bit of an in-between, like one sees with Paganism, where very little holds the greater group together and the small size of most practicing communities can allow (through schisming) maximum independence and individuality without threat to the whole. But I would think few organized world religions would be happy with the level of individuality and lack of doctrinal and practical agreement one finds in Paganism.
Quite a few liberal Christian churches are very tolerant of other religions, even including them in interfaith discussion and (in certain cases) ritual. However, the same churches or denominations might balk at including certain self-identified Christians, because then there is a question of the "proper" way to be a Christian.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, but I see this is all different religions and it doesn't surprise me that Buddhism has it too.
There is more tension and intolerance the more another person is sort-of like you but not-exactly like you, because this is more of a threat to the underlying structure and doctrinal and practical stability of that religion than religions that are clearly very little like your own and can be understood as their own systems. Generally, there is an attempt within most large organized religions to retain a sense of authenticity and validity based on various authorities and traditions. This means scrutinizing stuff that comes about that is different from the norm and deciding what gets to remain within and what gets tossed out.
So far as I can tell, if this is never done, any religion would naturally become so diverse as to be somewhat meaningless as a category. I suppose there is a bit of an in-between, like one sees with Paganism, where very little holds the greater group together and the small size of most practicing communities can allow (through schisming) maximum independence and individuality without threat to the whole. But I would think few organized world religions would be happy with the level of individuality and lack of doctrinal and practical agreement one finds in Paganism.
Ooh you can be so snippy sometimes. I was giving you the opportunity to put it all on the record, save reading wiki or something.
s.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Opportunities for me to do all the legwork abound, but thanks anyway.Ooh you can be so snippy sometimes. I was giving you the opportunity to put it all on the record, save reading wiki or something.
Btw, I just checked and find nothing on the wiki page for the Dalai Lama. If you would , please update that page at your earliest convenience with details on the conflict with Dorjee Shugden Buddhists, which seems to fit prominently in the Dalai Lama''s idea of his career as a religious official/ideologist. More recently he tried to get American Buddhists to side with him against Dorjee Shugden practitioners.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Is there active persecution and an ongoing effort attempt to ostracize some group?
For your interest, here's a Dorje Shugden petition to the Dalai Lama from this web page: Western Shugden Society: Petition to the Dalai Lama
It looks like there's a lot of support
To the Dalai Lama of Tibet,
We the undersigned ask you to accomplish the following four things:
We the undersigned ask you to accomplish the following four things:
- To give freedom to practise Dorje Shugden to whoever wishes to rely upon this Deity.
- To stop completely the discrimination between Shugden people and non-Shugden practitioners.
- To allow all Shugden monks and nuns who have been expelled from their monasteries and nunneries to return to their monasteries and nunneries where they should receive the same material and spiritual rights as the non-Shugden practitioners
- To tell the Tibetan community throughout the world in writing that they should practically apply the above three points.
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
Depending on the church, yes. And there is a long history of it as well.
There are so many factions in Christianity that it depends a lot on the denomination and organization.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I'm aware of historical instances of this. But with regard to the Dalai lama we are talking about present-day conflicts relating to heresy charges or imputations.
Offhand, apart from Protestants being defined as heretics, I can't think of any other recent times instances that the Pope (1) exercised his ecclesiastical jurisdiction in finding and punishing heretics, (2) actively promoted a politics of heresy and ostracism of nonCatholic Christian groups, or (3) defined a denomination as corruptive to a faith.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
If you accept the idea of lineage as the basis for a Lama's authority (see Post #44), the Dalai Lama's current conflict with Shugden practitioners would appear to be something like this:
An ecclesiastical official with questionable authority is dictating to other Buddhist what they should and should not believe (telling them they should not believe something he himself believed at one time) while at the same time conveying to nonBuddhists that Buddhist rituals mean so little (even when officiated by him) that they should feel free to modify those rituals at will. Your words: "altering the interior visualizations to fit with their own religious tradition."
True. I think it also runs the risk of becoming meaningless when outsiders are encouraged to partake in rituals that have been arbitrarily modified. The impression of arbitrariness is reinforced by the fact that there was no prior consultation between master and disciple to find out if the disciple had been practicing properly before going through an Empowerment (not uncommon for Tibetan Buddhist proceedings). And it is unlikely that there will be any follow up, which makes the ritual an isolated event with no continuity in the person's religious life.
How can a ritual that was officiated by a Buddhist ecclesiastic be anything but a Buddhist religious proceeding?
Dorje Shugden controversy
Main article: Dorje Shugden controversy
Alongside the Guru yoga of Je Tsongkhapa, one of the NKT-IKBU's two "essential practices" is of the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden,[138] as taught by Geshe Kelsang's and the Dalai Lama's root Guru, Trijang Rinpoche.[139] For NKT-IKBU practitioners, "Shugden is, like Tsongkhapa, an emanation of Manjushri, and equal in status."[140] It is no wonder, then, that controversy arose due to the Dalai Lama's "suppression" of the Dorje Shugden practice within the Tibetan exile community.[141] Acting from of a sense of "spiritual solidarity" for Dorje Shugden practitioners in India,[142][143] hundreds of members of the NKT-IKBU joined in the Western Shugden Society in publicly demonstrating against the Dalai Lama's "explicit ban"[144][145] which resulted in Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's expulsion from his alma mater, Sera Je monastery.[146] Geshe Kelsang Gyatso considered the political ban[147] to be "unwarranted meddling in a legitimate spiritual practice,"[148] with many of his students regarding the Dalai Lama's "accusations against Dorje Shugden practice absurd" and continuing with it unabated.[149]
Reacting to the media's portrayal of the NKT-IKBU as a 'controversial organization' because of its involvement in the Dorje Shugden controversy, Robert Bluck said, "Again a balanced approach is needed here: the practitioner's confident belief may appear as dogmatism to an unsympathetic observer."[150]
New Kadampa Tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As a Tibetan Buddhist I should think vaj could enlighten here.
s.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Time for the Kalama Sutta, once again, when the Buddha was speaking with non-Buddhists:
The Kalamas of Kesaputta ask for guidance from the Buddha
3. The Kalamas who were inhabitants of Kesaputta sitting on one side said to the Blessed One: "There are some monks and brahmans, venerable sir, who visit Kesaputta. They expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Some other monks and brahmans too, venerable sir, come to Kesaputta. They also expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Venerable sir, there is doubt, there is uncertainty in us concerning them. Which of these reverend monks and brahmans spoke the truth and which falsehood?"
The criterion for rejection
4. "It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them. Methinks appeal to tradition, appeal to authority, tradition, rumor, axiom, and bias have all been used in conjunction with this discussion, which the Buddha said to abandon in cases of one disparaging another's belief.
Instead, the Kalama Sutta continues on to direct the Kalamas to look for the absence of three things: greed, hate, and delusion. Those who have no greed, hate or delusion are the ones to accept.
But then, of course, I'm going by scripture here....
I suppose I can start throwing fish, pies, buckets of water, and shooting paintballs in a lighthearted and fun way, directing the appropriate and/or inappropriate projectile towards each person according to their own traditions, so as to give meaning, or not, in order to shock them out of their destructive behavior or though patterns....or not.
The Kalamas of Kesaputta ask for guidance from the Buddha
3. The Kalamas who were inhabitants of Kesaputta sitting on one side said to the Blessed One: "There are some monks and brahmans, venerable sir, who visit Kesaputta. They expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Some other monks and brahmans too, venerable sir, come to Kesaputta. They also expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Venerable sir, there is doubt, there is uncertainty in us concerning them. Which of these reverend monks and brahmans spoke the truth and which falsehood?"
The criterion for rejection
4. "It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them.
Instead, the Kalama Sutta continues on to direct the Kalamas to look for the absence of three things: greed, hate, and delusion. Those who have no greed, hate or delusion are the ones to accept.
But then, of course, I'm going by scripture here....
I suppose I can start throwing fish, pies, buckets of water, and shooting paintballs in a lighthearted and fun way, directing the appropriate and/or inappropriate projectile towards each person according to their own traditions, so as to give meaning, or not, in order to shock them out of their destructive behavior or though patterns....or not.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
The Buddha also discouraged his followers to stay out of politics.But then, of course, I'm going by scripture here....
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
The issue is doubling the standard on orthodoxy.
Again, this was a Buddhist ritual event in the sense that the proceedings were conducted by a Buddhist ecclesiastic, the Dalai Lama. He gave nonBuddhists leeway to modify the ritual - i.e., "alter the visualizations and vows to be something that fits with their faith traditions." How is this different from nullifying what is unique to a religion at the ritual level?
Further, since the initiation/empowerment happened for nonBuddhists outside a teacher/disciple relationship, how is this different from undermining the importance of such a relationship?
If ritual means nothing and the teacher/disciple relationship means nothing, do we conclude that religious doctrine and religious training also mean nothing?
Which raises yet another more fundamental question: why should anyone take Buddhism seriously if the most visible personage does not see a need to protect its sanctity as a religion?
What was done ostensibly to celebrate the spirit of Interfaith ends up destroying it, imho.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Oh gee wiz! Just because someone sharpens their knife with a whetstone, it doesn't nullify the act that you can still also sharpen your knife with a razor strop, as well.
The Dalai Lama was acting as a guide. (Incidentally, guides are also quite useful in sharpening your blade.)
All of this still does not nullify the fact that steel sharpens steel.
Showing compassion to others, and helping them to be compassionate to others is disparaging to the sanctity of Buddhism?
Since when? I would say that the sectarian projections might be the actual cause of your perception of this event being "ruined," imo. Would you drag others into this sectarian spoiler, as well?
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I like the analogy, but it does not cover the initiation procedure Kim was talking about. We have no idea whether a Buddhist empowerment -- i.e. the Amitabha Buddha initiation -- has an equivalent in all faith traditions. So it seems that you are arguing for a unity of religions based on either of two implicit assumptions: (1) religions are not different [they all do the same thing - "they all sharpen your blade" and get the job done"] or (2) religions probably are different, but we'll just assume they don't differ in important ways. I'm unwilling to make either assumption and I wouldn't expect anyone else to assume either of these things. For example, why should anyone think of Amitabha Buddha as being functionally equivalent to Christ Jesus?
As far as I can tell, to really to appreciate another faith tradition is to see it "as is" - i.e., to try to understand the original concepts, the underlying intentions and "feel" of the religion. In another thread, Kim suggested she would take a year to really study another religion to that end. In effect, nonBuddhists participating in a Buddhist proceeding without really knowing what they are doing (and/or without understanding the complications surrounding the authority of the religious leader officiating the procedure) are actually foregoing a learning process. They are going through the motions without any sharpening action. In fact, there's arguably no learning at all in terms of what it is to adhere to the Buddhist faith tradition. And isn't the motivation to learn something about Buddhism is diminished when you're told you can alter the meaning of a Buddhist ritual (the Amitabha Buddha initiation) to suit yourself?
Encouraging people to substitute bits from their own religious tradition as though these bits are interchangeable with aspects of Pure Land Buddhism is guidance? How is this different from confirming people in the ordinary delusional mind set that the world should match one's view of what it is (just because one is comfortable with it or because it suits one's purposes at the time) rather than truly trying to see it for what it is? What would the Buddha call this? There is a name for it.
I've been talking about the initiation ritual. So its seems you've changed the subject to the Bodhisattva vow. In the past the Dalai Lama has spoken of compassion without mentioning religion (he calls compassion "secular principle). I have seen him do this. So apparently he could help others in this way without having them go through a Buddhist ritual. Your agument does not help make the case.
I would say that the event's impact is potentially negative. My comments have been from the standpoint a naive observer - an everyday person who has a interest in Buddhism and who might even consider converting,. If I attended an event where a leading religious authority encouraged outsiders to take liberties with said authority's faith tradition, I would decide against converting to that tradition. In fact, if I didn't make a distinction between the Dalai Lama's approach and other kinds of Buddhist, I would likely be turned off to anything having to do with Buddhism.
Can you imagine the Pope telling the Christian world "Don't worry about accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior. When you're praying, just substitute whatever image you like - Zoroaster/Zarathushtra , Zeus, the Egyptian Ra sun god, the Amitabha Buddha, what have you. One g-d is as good as any. Any old ritual will do, you don't even need to understand it. Heck, there's probably some differences between these religions/mythologies, but let's gloss over them, ok?" How would that be any different from what transpired at the Long Beach Arena?
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
There does not have to be one centralized authority figure excommunicating people to have incidences of shoving people outside the religion. Protestant churches, generally evangelical fundamentalist ones, have denied mainstream traditional Protestants and Catholics as being part of the Body of Christ. Some liberal Christian churches have had incidences of denying fundamentalists. Whether at a single church level, or a sect/denomination, this occurs throughout history. It is part of the nature of social institutions to delineate boundaries and determine who is in and who is out.
I don't accept any basis for his authority, actually. I hold him in esteem as a religious practitioner and leader because his works have made a difference for people and I have learned from them.
But I am not big on authority figures (particularly grounded in lineage) from any religion (or non-religion, for that matter).
People earn my esteem through their work and wisdom as it relates to my own life. Otherwise, I am neutral. I've never been one that bought into any lineage progression for anything.
We simply entirely disagree on the nature of ritual and meaning. You seem to argue that ritual is meaningful based on shared religion; I argue that ritual can be meaningful based on mystical interior experience. It is hardly an arbitrary modification that allows one ritual to be used in a different religious context. Just because the modification is done by the practitioner and not an authority figure does not make it arbitrary.
I see ritual in quite mystical terms, in some contexts even in magical terms. This is probably one of the main areas we differ. I cannot imagine being offended or upset if someone from another religion used one of my tradition's rituals or practices and modified it. I would only hope that they received some of the energy, the investment of the past, in that ritual.
Are you saying there can be no spiritual experience that is led by a person of one religion in which there are practitioners of another religion?
That seems to set up an awfully bounded set of systems. I suppose I see the world with a bit more fluidity. We are all human, after all, and can learn from one another's ideas and practices.
ETA- the actual vows were saying the following verses to generate Bodhicitta:
http://www.viewonbuddhism.org/compassion.html said:
I (and others in my party) altered certain words to fit our own religious tradition- for example, instead of "Sangha," I said "spiritual community."
Last edited:
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
God is the one who gets the job done.
Well of course you can expect religions to be different in important ways. Everyone has their own unique hang-ups, and within Buddhism, it is said that there are 84,000 dharma doors available. (If that isn't recognizing and allowing for individual differences, I don't know what is.)
Um, nope. What you call "diminishing" Buddhism sounds suspiciously like closing off many dharma doors, which would, in fact, be diminishing a Buddhist belief.
Communicating the concepts in a cultural context that people can relate to is a good thing, imo.
What? Mass hypnosis?
Those participating in the ritual didn't seem to mind. Is this argument about trying to curb public displays of religion?
That's your choice. Do you seek to remove that same choice from others, and close dharma doors?
Ah, but do all of these different gods tell people to be compassionate to others, and how?