Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:09 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 109 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Posts: 682
Location: Canada
Huseng wrote:
In western countries, you might not have large monastic organizations, but nevertheless you have plenty of qualified dharma teachers as well as individuals spouting nonsense and even some cults self-identifying as Buddhist.

So, is a hierarchy and orthodox institution really necessary to prevent false teachers and adharma from spreading? Even in places where you have traditional organizations, you still get false teachers and adharma.


I am on the fence if Dharma in the West will even survive unless it becomes adharma. There were very few young people at the Westerner Dharma centres I remember. There was a huge influx of Buddhism with the Tibetans and with succeeding waves of Asian immigration. Culminating with the Hong Kong Chinese just before unification. This migration is slowing down and will likely stop in the next decade or so and start to reverse. It is like the American science community after WWII. Nasa was great in it's day. Without all those German rocket scientists the US would never had made it to the moon. I see something much the same with the incredible generation of Tulkus that lived here. I get an inappropriate feeling in some Dharma centres. The same feeling I get in a museum. I don't think 0.7% of the population is enough to self sustain. I think privately many Lamas don't take the West seriously anymore.

Attracting new students would mean changing the formula. It wouldn't really be Buddhism anymore.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:44 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Change will come whether we like it or not. What I am opposed to is change based on ego (forced change to suit our self-centredness) rather than change based on realisation (evolutionary change). By the same token I am against conservation of method/structures for egotistical reasons (money, power, etc...) but am all for conservation if it ensures that it will allow the maximum amount of practitioners to reach liberation.

Do power (and organisational) structures within the sangha need to change to ensure that the structures mirror the Dharma, or do we need to alter the way we view these structures?

I'm not 100% sure of the answer yet.
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
kirtu wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
Astus wrote:
The concept of equality is another thing, mostly a legal matter and such.


That is not how we Americans view the issue.


My experience with American's and equality is that while Americans verbally venerate equality


It's a process. Once the concept of rights caught hold, human beings started to catch up with the idea.

The American concept of rights does not immediately mean that everyone sees the full implications the notion of equal rights or that there is no injustice. But rights are considered inalienable, and the process of our Democracy inolves discovering those rights as we go along.

N

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:11 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Posts: 4612
Location: Baltimore, MD
Namdrol wrote:
kirtu wrote:
My experience with American's and equality is that while Americans verbally venerate equality


It's a process. Once the concept of rights caught hold, human beings started to catch up with the idea.

The American concept of rights does not immediately mean that everyone sees the full implications the notion of equal rights or that there is no injustice. But rights are considered inalienable, and the process of our Democracy inolves discovering those rights as we go along.


Groan! :toilet:

The Dutch and others beat us to it, hands down.

What will equality mean in the context of Dharma?

Kirt

_________________
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:51 am
Posts: 1471
Huseng wrote:
In many modern day societies there is at the least the pretence and belief that everyone is equal no matter their status or background.


Hi Jeff,

This thread is an interesting question and topic of discussion.

In the light of the previous posts, although many of you already know, would just like to state that while originally from a so-called "Western" country that is neither north American nor European, and presently in the area of greater China for the past few years, my point of view may be from a somewhat different angle to most here. (Okay, disclaimer done!)

Quote:
I think this belief might get transferred over to contemporary Buddhist communities as well to some extent. It wouldn't please people to just outright say that the male monks are chiefly superior followed by the male novices, then female nuns, female novices and following them the laity, even though this is how it is presented on paper. Seating arrangements have always been quite important. Moreover, there is a prescribed hierarchy.


In my time in Chinese Buddhism, I don't recall having heard anyone claim that somehow bhiksus are superior to sramaneras, who in turn ... etc. ... to lay women. In general, whoever has the virtues, compassion, wisdom and so forth, is considered highly.

The issue of seating arrangements has other considerations, too. For the monastics, the genders are separated. But, they are separated "east and west", putting the two genders in parallel. Then, of the men and women respectively, it is from monastic seniority in terms of samgha-varsa. One reason for doing it in terms of varsa rather than attainment, as the Buddha himself pointed out, is that it is clear and unambiguous. One can state a date for receiving precepts, and others in the community know without needing to ask, whereas who is going to spout about their own attainments? Nobody.

Quote:
So do we run into a situation where everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others? Wouldn't it just be best to do away with such pretences and consent to the existence of a prescribed hierarchy where male monastics are at the top and laity at the bottom?


As described above, I'm not quite sure that it is "male monastics are at the top and laity at the bottom" in my experience.

Quote:
Or should a monastic have to earn their position of respect from the laity by virtue of wisdom and deeds rather than by putting on robes and formally renouncing?


This is usually what I see being done, anyway. As the disclaimer above, this is just my experience, and everyone's mileage probably differ.

In the end, I think that if we want to see a change, then we have to enact that change ourselves. If we think that virtue and wisdom should be honored more, then we should spend our time on that. Worrying about what others are doing could possibly just detract from that.

~~ Huifeng

_________________
My Prajñācāra Blog
Buddhist Studies at Fo Guang University, Taiwan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:50 am 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am
Posts: 1140
What kind of equality and how is it to be grounded?

If we're speaking in the language of 'inalienable rights' we need to recognise immediately that such things are grounded - ontologically - in the idea of natural law. Not only is such a concept very foreign to Buddhism, I think that Buddhist metaphysics sharply denies the ontological assumptions which underpin such a premise.

If you read the first article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - "that all humans are born free and equal, and are naturally endowed with reason and conscience" - the quasi Buddhist looks at that and says "beautiful, sign me up." But the more insightful Buddhist will tear it apart; a great sentiment which is not true.

The question is, what remains once the natural law/inalienable rights discourse is recognised to be what it is: just a discourse, empty and constructed.

I say this as an avowed egalitarian - it is extremely difficult to ground a normative principle or aspiration of equality once you do away with the natural law/natural rights story.

In some respects this bleeds into the Batchelor thread - to what extent should Buddhism be reconciled with western moral and political traditions? The overwhelming sense on that thread was that it is ABSOLUTE ADHARMIC HERESY to attempt a reconciliation with western scientific (or should I say pseudo scientific) traditions........but do those same people think that there is perhaps more leeway with moral/political thinking?

If so, why/how?

:anjali:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 5986
Location: Taiwan
Huifeng wrote:
In my time in Chinese Buddhism, I don't recall having heard anyone claim that somehow bhiksus are superior to sramaneras, who in turn ... etc. ... to lay women. In general, whoever has the virtues, compassion, wisdom and so forth, is considered highly.


It isn't seniority which dictates who gets the most respect? This is generally how it works in most Buddhist (Chinese or otherwise) organizations.

My point is that the laity are expected to defer to monastics. In the Theravada context, I gather from reading Ven. Dhammika's book, laypeople are even less appreciated. The first day bhikku is regarded more highly and listened to than the layperson of many years of practice and study. I'm not pointing this out because I want respect from anyone as a layperson, but just that the hierarchical system potentially erases the value of a certain demographic who might have something to offer. Laypeople might be valued as scholars, but not as dharma teachers outside of some Tibetan traditions.

In the context of transmitting Buddhism to the west, the lack of a meritocracy will turn off a lot of people.


Quote:
The issue of seating arrangements has other considerations, too. For the monastics, the genders are separated. But, they are separated "east and west", putting the two genders in parallel. Then, of the men and women respectively, it is from monastic seniority in terms of samgha-varsa. One reason for doing it in terms of varsa rather than attainment, as the Buddha himself pointed out, is that it is clear and unambiguous. One can state a date for receiving precepts, and others in the community know without needing to ask, whereas who is going to spout about their own attainments? Nobody.


Historically wasn't it the case that the women sat behind the males?

If you're willing to change it into two parallel sections of segregated genders, we might as well go for equality and scrap the whole thing. We can all sit together, male and women, lay and not, without concern for seniority or title.

We are all, after all, adults and segregating people based on their gender is a throwback to archaic social systems.


Quote:
Quote:
Or should a monastic have to earn their position of respect from the laity by virtue of wisdom and deeds rather than by putting on robes and formally renouncing?


This is usually what I see being done, anyway. As the disclaimer above, this is just my experience, and everyone's mileage probably differ.


There are some eminent teachers nowadays who get respect heaped upon them and because so many people in their organizations are emotionally invested in them, nobody dares criticize them.

Case in point is Ven. Xingyun of Foguangshan who openly supports the death penalty and conscription, but still gets praised as some kind of enlightened bodhisattva. He might be a skilled administrator, but I doubt he has either wisdom or genuine compassion. Nevertheless, he is highly regarded by millions of people and anyone presumably becoming heavily involved in FGS will likewise become emotionally invested in the figure and not question his credentials as a "grand master" or even as a "dharma teacher". By default he has a position of respect simply by his role as an administrator, not because of wisdom. There are others who might not be in so high a role, yet write books about applied dharma, yet are in reality quite bitter and angry individuals. But nevertheless, they get a lot of respect just by virtue of their robes and title. I imagine they get published easier as well.

_________________
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 5986
Location: Taiwan
kirtu wrote:
Huseng wrote:
Despite having a few very large Buddhist institutions with the old fashioned hierarchy and education systems for monastics, you still have organizations and groups outside the large institutions teaching false dharma in Buddhist garb.


But not inside the major institutions, right?

Kirt



They might not specifically teach it as dharma, but you have some figures condoning the death penalty, conscription, etc... and even defending the state for executing criminals with contrived ideas of how they think karma works.

So, sure, there are outright wrong views being cloaked in Buddhist drag and taught to people.

_________________
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:12 pm
Posts: 329
You talk a lot Huseng :smile:

_________________
People will know nothing and everything
Remember nothing and everything
Think nothing and everything
Do nothing and everything
- Machig Labdron


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:08 pm 
Online
Founding Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:54 pm
Posts: 1229
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Greetings,

Jnana wrote:
Huseng wrote:
The senior administrator still gets more credit than the lowly sweeper of leaves out back.

8 worldly dharmas.

Well said.

Maitri,
Retro. :)

_________________
Live in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes

Dhamma Wheel (Theravada forum) * Here Comes Trouble


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:49 pm
Posts: 143
maybay wrote:
You talk a lot Huseng :smile:


it's a buddhist discussion forum.


d


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:49 am
Posts: 543
Namdrol wrote:
Caz wrote:
There is no such thing as equality in Samsara and as far as I know Buddhists are still within Samsara. :shrug:



Well, that is exactly one kind of equality i.e. being in samsara all sentient beings are equal.


Touche :smile:

_________________
Abandoning Dharma is, in the final analysis, disparaging the Hinayana because of the Mahayana; favoring the Hinayana on account of the Mahayana; playing off sutra against tantra; playing off the four classes of the tantras against each other; favoring one of the Tibetan schools—the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu, or Nyingma—and disparaging the rest; and so on. In other words, we abandon Dharma any time we favor our own tenets and disparage the rest.

Liberation in the Palm of your hand~Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:12 pm
Posts: 329
daelm wrote:
maybay wrote:
You talk a lot Huseng :smile:


it's a buddhist discussion forum.

d

I'm going bald. Point is you can't see me wearing a hat.

_________________
People will know nothing and everything
Remember nothing and everything
Think nothing and everything
Do nothing and everything
- Machig Labdron


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:08 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Posts: 5771
Nemo wrote:

I am on the fence if Dharma in the West will even survive unless it becomes adharma. There were very few young people at the Westerner Dharma centres I remember. There was a huge influx of Buddhism with the Tibetans and with succeeding waves of Asian immigration. Culminating with the Hong Kong Chinese just before unification. This migration is slowing down and will likely stop in the next decade or so and start to reverse. It is like the American science community after WWII. Nasa was great in it's day. Without all those German rocket scientists the US would never had made it to the moon. I see something much the same with the incredible generation of Tulkus that lived here. I get an inappropriate feeling in some Dharma centres. The same feeling I get in a museum. I don't think 0.7% of the population is enough to self sustain. I think privately many Lamas don't take the West seriously anymore.

Attracting new students would mean changing the formula. It wouldn't really be Buddhism anymore.


I agree with the problem you describe. A better solution would be for everyone who can to practice like there's no tomorrow (because there is none), build the institutions we can build with what we have available, and...

what comes after that?

_________________
Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

viewtopic.php?f=114&t=13727


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:16 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Posts: 2995
Location: British Columbia
Tea and cookies, of course.

_________________
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm
Posts: 783
Namdrol wrote:
Astus wrote:
"Therefore a bhikkhu ... should not present himself as equal to, nor imagine himself to be inferior, nor better than, another." (Snp 4.5)



Yes, and I wish more bhikṣus would recall this.


Reminds me of the first time I met the venerable Hsin Ting, bumped into him in a hotel lobby. I didn't know who he was at the time and would never have guessed he was the former abbot of Fo Guang Shan and apparently a quite famous monk in Taiwan. He was just telling me about how he had begun teaching Dharma to prisoners and was evidently beaming with joy and excitement at this new venture. It was only after I began seeing his face on CDs, DVDs and book covers I started wondering who the hell that guy was.

I imagine it can't be easy to stay humble given the veneration and adoration many bhikshus are given, but some do seem to manage it quite well. The rest are only human, I suppose.

_________________
"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"

--- Gandavyuha Sutra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 289
Location: USA, Texas
All people are born equal--naked and helpless. However, everyone is not equal, there are many differences in people, height, weight, beauty, intelligence, etc. We should, however, treat everyone equally, until they do something to warrant otherwise.

_________________
HHDL: "My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am
Posts: 1577
Huseng wrote:
Case in point is Ven. Xingyun of Foguangshan who openly supports the death penalty and conscription, but still gets praised as some kind of enlightened bodhisattva. He might be a skilled administrator, but I doubt he has either wisdom or genuine compassion. Nevertheless, he is highly regarded by millions of people and anyone presumably becoming heavily involved in FGS will likewise become emotionally invested in the figure and not question his credentials as a "grand master" or even as a "dharma teacher". By default he has a position of respect simply by his role as an administrator, not because of wisdom. There are others who might not be in so high a role, yet write books about applied dharma, yet are in reality quite bitter and angry individuals. But nevertheless, they get a lot of respect just by virtue of their robes and title. I imagine they get published easier as well.


In Establishing Pure Land on Earth master Hsing Yun says that death penalty is permissible under certain conditions, which are then enumerated. He is far from supporting it. You must be more accurate when quoting this issue.

with best wishes!

_________________
svaha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:57 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Aemilius wrote:
In Establishing Pure Land on Earth master Hsing Yun says that death penalty is permissible under certain conditions, which are then enumerated. He is far from supporting it. You must be more accurate when quoting this issue.
And who gives the permission? You see, if a fully enlightened being, capable of seeing the outcomes of any action, was to choose whether another being should be executed or not then, maybe, okay. I may agree with them. But in that instance you may find the enlightened being ordering the execution of various beings that have not even commited a crime... ;)

Leaving it up to government officials to choose who is murdered or not, well that's a different stroy altogether. In that case, to err on the side of caution, I would say that it is probably better for a Buddhist leader to say that the death penalty is never permissible, lest their less than enlightened followers get the wrong idea (which they will).
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am
Posts: 1577
The question is complex. Fact is that no country or state exists, or has come into being, without violence, without war, without the use of weapons. All buddhist communities are dependent on the existence of the State. Therefore buddhist communities are dependent on the violence that has been used, and is being used by states and governments.

German philosopher Hegel has said many interesting things about this dilemma, i.e. that individuals are demanded to behave ethically, but then the history proves us that the larger units of states never exist without war, without violence, stealth and robbery. How do we understand this as buddhists ?

I see Master Hsing Yun as bringing buddhism on a realistic level, when he takes into consideration how states & countries exist. And maybe his thinking has even been influenced by the great philosopher Hegel in this matter.

_________________
svaha


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 109 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dan74, Inge, Saoshun, yan kong and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group