Something I noticed about Buddhism

[Fraggle Rocker]

This is something that has always troubled me about traditionally Buddhist or partly Budhist countries - how easily capitalism and Western culture took over there. Japan and Thailand being painful examples, but others as well. Similar has happened with many other nations and tribes worldwide. It hurts me to see a member of an African warrior tribe, dressed in a T-shirt and baseball cap. What is it about these people and nations that makes them so vulnerable to Western influence?

It isn't something about them that makes them vulnerable. There's something about Western culture that makes it attractive, and it's our prosperity.

Keep in mind Maslow's hierarchy. When people are struggling for stability and security, or simply for survival, the niceties of their tribe's or nation's culture aren't as important to them. That's hard for us with our full bellies, safe homes, steady jobs and pampered children to understand, because we have spare emotional capacity to sit around and think about the niceties of the world's various cultures and find our own lacking. They don't.

We know that to a greater or lesser extent it's an accident of history that the West sprang ahead in the last 500 years. (Although the Enlightenment that has eluded many of the world's other societies--perhaps most glaringly Islamic--played an undeniable role in it.) America was the engine of the West's prosperity until recently, and America was an entire hemisphere that had never supported an Iron Age civilization, so its resources were largely untapped. Europe helped itself to the resources of the rest of the world, or as it was recently put, "The reason there was no Industrial Revolution in India, even though unlike China India was ready for it, is that India was forced to build England's Industrial Revolution."

But people in other countries don't understand that. They look around and see nothing but Neolithic housing, transportation, education, medical care, diplomacy, etc. and all they can do is look at Europe, America, Japan and Australia and say, "Whatever they did to get that, I want some too."

As for Japan, come on dude. Remember who lost WWII? We got to rebuild that country, from the ashes up, in our image. And we did a damn fine job of it. We even wrote their constitution. Our management consultants and efficiency experts, who couldn't get a meeting over here, went over there and were revered as sensei by a humiliated people who were determined to put as much of their past behind them as possible.

 

[Michael]

have you read the Quran?

I was given an Qur'an years ago. To be honest - after 5 chapters I found myself skimming large sections as I was board to tears.

Why?

 

[greenberg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqzvcVb2GgE

Does this really happen?

I don't think anyone would dare do such a thing in Europe, for fear of lawsuits.

 

[greenberg]

It isn't something about them that makes them vulnerable. There's something about Western culture that makes it attractive, and it's our prosperity.

Keep in mind Maslow's hierarchy. When people are struggling for stability and security, or simply for survival, the niceties of their tribe's or nation's culture aren't as important to them. That's hard for us with our full bellies, safe homes, steady jobs and pampered children to understand, because we have spare emotional capacity to sit around and think about the niceties of the world's various cultures and find our own lacking. They don't.

But people in other countries don't understand that. They look around and see nothing but Neolithic housing, transportation, education, medical care, diplomacy, etc. and all they can do is look at Europe, America, Japan and Australia and say, "Whatever they did to get that, I want some too."

This goes to show that culture and national identity can be very superficial.

As for Japan, come on dude. Remember who lost WWII?

The westernization of Japan started much earlier than WWII.

We got to rebuild that country, from the ashes up, in our image. And we did a damn fine job of it. We even wrote their constitution.

I hope you are saying this with sarcasm!

 

[greenberg]

I lived in a Buddhist temple with my friends family for a few months in Japan. The father was a priest. Although we had some difficulty communicating, needless to say, it was made clear to me, on many occasions, that guy took the same open-minded attitude as displayed in the OP.

You mean - this priest was saying he is willing to admit that the Buddha was wrong?

This has happened over and over. Maybe not all and maybe not every but I do believe that for many educated Buddhists these sorts of ideas are fundamental to their religious indoctrination/up-bringing.

I know such people too.
I think they are awfully arrogant.

By virtue of the content of the Buddhist teachings, those who could rightfully be in the position to dimiss or amend the Buddhist teachings would have to be superior to the Buddha.
A person who could rightfully dismiss or amend the Buddhist teachings would have to have attained everything the Buddha did, and more.

Otherwise, they are making baseless claims to superiority.

As for Xianity and Islam, I have known many educated Xians and Muslims - they are in general both closed-minded in like regards.

Why should they be open-minded?
So that they will be more in line with some liberal meainstream policy?
To get approval from people like you?

SAM here can't even admit that the possibility could even exist that Mohammad was not a Prophet. The possibility that the Qur'an is wrong can not exist. (notice I'm not asking if SAM thinks it is flawed, I'm asking if the possibility of it being flawed exists) SAM spent half of the thread trying figure out a way to post-hoc prove this point (ex: "What exactly does it [the Qur'an] say about the one God?") is a shallow attempt to prove to herself that the Qur'an is indeed perfect and hence her attitude is open-minded simply because it is a universal truth that the possibility of the Qur'an being wrong does not exist.

Perhaps one day you will get serious and realize that your life is on the line.

 

[S.A.M.]

As for Japan, come on dude. Remember who lost WWII? We got to rebuild that country, from the ashes up, in our image. And we did a damn fine job of it. We even wrote their constitution. Our management consultants and efficiency experts, who couldn't get a meeting over here, went over there and were revered as sensei by a humiliated people who were determined to put as much of their past behind them as possible.

You're kidding, right?

Does this really happen?

I don't think anyone would dare do such a thing in Europe, for fear of lawsuits.

Its a satire about tourists who come to India and behave badly. The rest of course, is what they cannot do in real life.

 

[Michael]

You mean - this priest was saying he is willing to admit that the Buddha was wrong?

The Priest told me he needed to do more studying as there is a lot he simply didn't know or questions he hadn't thought about. One day some Westerner pops up in your Temple and asking you questions that you hadn't thought over - it's not like the guy is going to just start popping out answers left and right. Most of my questions aren't even my questions but philosophical arguments I have read ages and ages ago. Nestled in most anything I think is an interesting question is probably really just a rehash of something I read from someone else long ago.

So, can I remember everything I specifically asked that particular Buddhist priest? No. It was over 2 years ago. But, I can email him if you have a question you'd like me to ask.

Anyway, the point is, IMO, not all Buddhists take the attitude that Buddha was the end all and be all. That is the exact same trap the Byzantine fell into with their almost honorary worship of Greek philosophers.

I understand Aristotle was a brilliant person but to suggest he was the pinnical of human thought leaves no room for people like Kent. Right? People are a product of their time and their surroundings. I think this is the point that the Tibetan Buddhist was trying to make. Buddha was, as is everyone, a product of his time and culture. That said he seems to have had remarkable foresight. Was he absolutely crystal clear on every little thing? Maybe not. The possibility he may be wrong on this or that certainly exists. Admitting that this possibility exists is the open mindedness I am referring to.

[at one time people thought that the possibility could not exist Aristotle could be wrong]

Does SAM need my approval? No.
These debates are supposed to be just that - debates.
She is simply being illogical and thus losing the debate.
Nothing wrong in that.

I do not understand you reference to my "life being on the line". IMO life not lived on the line isn't one worth living.

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

I've been saying all along that Buddhists don't follow Buddha. I don't understand why you are now impressed by this

 

[Michael]

I have no idea if they follow Buddha. I'm sure there are a lot of people (a few on these boards) that would say "I've been saying all along SAM doesn't follow "The" Prophet."

That's not my point.
My point is that it's been my experience that "Buddhists" are open minded and monotheists are close minded.

I personally think it's good to be open-minded but that's just my prerogative.

 

[Vkothii]

My experience is that it doesn't seem to matter what the underlying philosophy might be, everyone who is religious is also into ritual (offerings to the almighty who can then grant some benefit), and a serious belief in the attainment of some kind of special status (divinity), by adhering to doctrine, i.e. becoming one of the "chosen", or lucky few, or whatever.

The Buddhists I live with are happy to offer up all kinds of things to the shrine they keep (religiously) in any house they occupy.
Money, as in cold hard cash, is a common offering (the hope is that it will become "lucky" money), I've seen makeup ("lucky" makeup, or cosmetics), various other trinkets of unfathomable purpose, but there's a sample.

Despite what Buddha actually said, people want something and someone to worship, and to entreat with prayers and offerings. That's the connection they want, rather than any understanding of themselves. They want to dump it all on a bigger set of shoulders.

 

[Michael]

people want something and someone to worship, and to entreat with prayers and offerings. That's the connection they want, rather than any understanding of themselves. They want to dump it all on a bigger set of shoulders.

I totally agree.
I just think that if human superstitious need is tempered with positive religious dogma such as an insistence to try and remain open minded that this is much better for both the person and the society than when people are indoctrinated to be close-minded.

If the underlying values are humanistic then it really doesn't matter if one wraps it in a Buddhists robes, a Sikh turbin or a Xeno DC-8 UFO.

Michael

 

[BeHereNow]

"A special transmission outside the scriptures;
Depending not on words and letters;
Pointing directly to the human mind;
Seeing into one's nature, one becomes a Buddha."


If I meet the Buddha on the way to market, I will whack him with my spade, and plant him in my garden, to help the flowers grow.

 

[greenberg]

If the underlying values are humanistic then it really doesn't matter if one wraps it in a Buddhists robes, a Sikh turbin or a Xeno DC-8 UFO.

You seem to think that humanistic values are superior to all others.
Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[greenberg]

My point is that it's been my experience that "Buddhists" are open minded and monotheists are close minded.

I'm not denying or questioning your experience.

But to make statements about Buddhism or monotheism as such, we need to look into their doctrine, not in the behavior of people who call themselves "Buddhists" or "monotheists".
The doctrine of Buddhism, the instructions therein, could be said to be extremely closed-minded.

The thread title is "Something I noticed about Buddhism".
But the correct way to title that which you are discussing here is "Something I noticed about people who call themselves 'Buddhists'".

 

[Michael]

You seem to think that humanistic values are superior to all others.
Am I understanding you correctly?

Humanistic "values" are as subjective as are any morality sets so no I wouldn't use the words superior. An ancient Roman's ideas on value would be very different than my own. I wouldn't argue mine were superior to his.

 

[Michael]

The thread title is "Something I noticed about Buddhism".
But the correct way to title that which you are discussing here is "Something I noticed about people who call themselves 'Buddhists'".

Well, I'm not sure that the two can be differentiated? Buddism is what is practiced? People who practice Buddhism are called Buddhists?

 

[greenberg]

Well, I'm not sure that the two can be differentiated? Buddism is what is practiced? People who practice Buddhism are called Buddhists?

When you look at a person's speech and behavior, do you assume that everything they say and do reflects the religion or philosophy they declare to adhere to or be members of?

 

[Michael]

When you look at a person's speech and behavior, do you assume that everything they say and do reflects the religion or philosophy they declare to adhere to or be members of?

No, but when I hear something over and over I tend to think that this must be part of the basic foundation of that beleif. For example, I often hear Muslims say Mohammad was the Last Prophet. Doesn't mean they all think that but most do. I often her Xians say Jesus died for my sins, probably most Xians think this. I often hear Buddists state that Buddha was a man like any other and is not infalible. As a matter of fact I asked a Buddhist that question today and got that exact answer.

 

[greenberg]

I often hear Buddists state that Buddha was a man like any other and is not infalible. As a matter of fact I asked a Buddhist that question today and got that exact answer.

Whom did the other person mean:
Siddhartha Gotama, or the Buddha?

 

[Michael]

Good question. I will ask. I'm pretty sure they meant Buddha.