how do we deal with the expectations of "political correctness" from within our own "Buddhist" groups and communities for voicing the Buddhist point of view?
how do we deal with accusations of discrimination or hate speech from within our "Buddhist" groups and communities for voicing the Buddhist POV?
In particular, how do we compensate for the knee jerk rejection of Buddhists teachings regarding:
the basis of ethics and what is ethical?
ritual sacrifice of animals and humans?
what constitutes a spiritual attainment?
whether or not a practice or doctrine is wholesome, unwholesome, benign or malignant?
To set the tone of the discussion and to save time, below I have listed a few relevant Buddhist excerpts with their references.
Shantideva speaks about false spiritual paths produced by demonic forces:
"(161) There, as well, demonic force is working hard
To bring about a fall to the most awful rebirth states.
There, (because) there's a profusion of false paths,
Indecisively wavering is so hard to transcend." - Chapter 9 (sPyod-'jug, Bodhisattvacharyavatara)
by Shantideva trans. Berzin 2004
Shantideva refutes a "creator god" religion:
"(124) If what he depends on is a gathering (of conditions),
(Then, again,) the Powerful Lord Ishvara would become
not the cause:
(For,) when they're gathered, he'd lack the power
not to create,
And in their absence, he'd lack the power to create." - Chapter 9 (sPyod-'jug, Bodhisattvacharyavatara)
by Shantideva trans. Berzin 2004
Buddha Shakyamuni refutes a "creator god" who was under the influence of Mara:
"When this was said, I told Mara the Evil One, 'I know you, Evil One. Don't assume, "He doesn't know me." You are Mara, Evil One. And Brahma, and Brahma's assembly, and the attendants of Brahma's assembly have all fallen into your hands. They have all fallen into your power. And you think, "This one, too, has come into my hands, has come under my control." But, Evil One, I have neither come into your hands nor have I come under your control.' - Brahma-nimantanika Sutta trans. Thanissaro http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Buddha Shakyamuni identifies the wrong view of a "creator god":
""And the beings who re-arose there after him also think: 'This must be Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And we have been created by him. What is the reason? Because we see that he was here first, and we appeared here after him.'" - Brahmajala 42 trans. Bodhi http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html
Buddha Shakyamuni identifies the attitude of a person who will not make statements about wholesome and unwholesome out of fear and instead uses evasive statements(see eel wriggling):
"62. "Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin does not understand as it really is what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. He thinks: 'I do not understand as it really is what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. If, without understanding, I were to declare something to be wholesome or unwholesome, my declaration might be false. If my declaration should be false, that would distress me, and that distress would be an obstacle for me.' Therefore, out of fear and loathing of making a false statement, he does not declare anything to be wholesome or unwholesome. But when he is questioned about this or that point, he resorts to evasive statements and to endless equivocation: "I do not take it thus, nor do I take it in that way, nor do I take it in some other way. I do not say that it is not, nor do I say that it is neither this nor that.' "This, bhikkhus, is the first case." - Brahmajala 62 trans. Bodhi http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html"
Buddha Shakyamuni speaks about people who don't speak about good and bad action due to dullness and stupidity in that regard:
""Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin is dull and stupid. Due to his dullness and stupidity, when he is questioned about this or that point, he resorts to evasive statements and to endless equivocation: 'If you ask me whether there is a world beyond — if I thought there is another world, I would declare that there is. But I do not take it thus, nor do I take it in that way, nor do I take it in some other way. I do not say that it is not, nor do I say that is neither this nor that.'"Similarly, when asked any of the following questions, he resorts to the same evasive statements and to endless equivocation:....C.
1. Is there fruit and result of good and bad action?
2. Is there no fruit and result of good and bad action?
3. Is it that there both is and is not fruit and result of good and bad action?
4. Is it that there neither is nor is not fruit and result of good and bad action?" -Brahmajala 65 trans. Bodhi http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html
Buddha Shakyamuni speaks about debased arts like worshipping a "creator god", offerings to gods for favor, ceremonial bathing, and fire offerings which are common in some other religions:
26. "Or he might say: 'Whereas some recluses and brahmins, while living on the food offered by the faithful, earn their living by a wrong means of livelihood, by such debased arts as: arranging auspicious dates for marriages, both those in which the bride is brought in (from another family) and those in which she is sent out (to another family); arranging auspicious dates for betrothals and divorces; arranging auspicious dates for the accumulation or expenditure of money; reciting charms to make people lucky or unlucky; rejuvenating the fetuses of abortive women; reciting spells to bind a man's tongue, to paralyze his jaws, to make him lose control over his hands, to make him lose control over his jaw, or to bring on deafness; obtaining oracular answers to questions by means of a mirror, a girl, or a god; worshipping the sun; worshipping Mahābrahmā; bringing forth flames from the mouth; invoking the goddess of luck — the recluse Gotama abstains from such wrong means of livelihood, from such debased arts.'
27. "Or he might say: 'Whereas some recluses and brahmins, while living on the food offered by the faithful, earn their living by a wrong means of livelihood, by such debased arts as: promising gifts to deities in return for favors; fulfilling such promises; demonology; reciting spells after entering an earthen house; inducing virility and impotence; preparing and consecrating sites for a house; giving ceremonial mouthwashes and ceremonial bathing; offering sacrificial fires; administering emetics, purgatives, expectorants and phlegmagogues; administering medicine through the ear and through the nose; administering ointments and counter-ointments; practising fine surgery on the eyes and ears; practising general surgery on the body; practising as a children's doctor; the application of medicinal roots; the binding on of medicinal herbs — the recluse Gotama abstains from such wrong means of livelihood, from such debased arts.'" - Brahmajala Sutta trans. Bodhi http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html
A common teaching in Vajrayana of the 8 freedoms mentions not being reborn amongst those of other inferior religions:
"The sixth freedom: not being born as a heretic
The sixth freedom is having the freedom to practice Dharma through not being born as a heretic. A heretic is someone who says there are no Four Noble Truths, reincarnation, past and future lives or liberation from the bondage of karma and disturbing thoughts. Heretics may also believe that you can achieve liberation through self-inflicted punishment or that by sacrificing animals or killing people, you can go to heaven. Heretics recognize the path shown by Buddha as a completely wrong path and the teachings of Buddha as evil. Their practices create only heavy negative karma, which causes them to be reborn in the lower realms. Their completely hallucinated beliefs as to what is the path to liberation, or heaven, cannot even protect them from the lower realms. " - Perfect Freedom: The Great Value of Being Human, Lama Zopa http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect ... 2&chid=331
Now in the past I have faced criticism and even censorship amongst "Buddhists" for mentioning these excerpts and/or reiterating their meaning.
So, I am eager to see how we, in this Buddhist forum, will resolve this conflict between:
Society's values of the "political correctness" that rebukes discrimination, malignant or benign, with regard to views and practices and
Buddha, Dharma, Sangha and our own Buddhist values which discriminate malignant or benign, with regard to views and practices.