Can Buddhism be Dangerous?

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
[N.B. This is the forum that was called ‘Exploring Buddhism’. The new name simply describes it better.]
Post Reply
User avatar
tomschwarz
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:31 am

Can Buddhism be Dangerous?

Post by tomschwarz »

Hello friends,

My point here, dont think to much of your"self" and your religion. At least in Buddhism, there is no god no devil and no magic(?). So you can powa or recite forbidden gobldiguck or tuomma or whatever. Buddhism only relates to the reality that surrounds your mind and your mind itself. As such, as Buddhism has it, your happiness depends on ethics, meditation and wisdom, a.k.a the practice of Buddhism or similar faith (based on similar practice).

Disagree? Is Buddhism Dangerous? If yes, and you like multiple choice, please answer with a numeric range, Buddhism is more or less dangerous than (number), or freestyle your mind in Buddhism danger words.

1 - sleeping/dreaming
2 - wake/thinking
3- walking/driving
4 - practicing any other religion
5 - mild mind altering (cafiene)
6 - mind altering (alchohol/marijuana/coke)
7 - mind transforming (lsd/psylosibon)
8 - death/bardo of dying
9 - birth
10 - end of humanity on earth

...that reminds me, would number 10 be a good thing in terms of safe or dangerous Buddhism?
i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21590
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Can Buddhism be Dangerous?

Post by Grigoris »

confused.png
confused.png (208.07 KiB) Viewed 2154 times
Clearly written under the influence of whoopy weed.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1663
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: Can Buddhism be Dangerous?

Post by seeker242 »

Dangerous to what? Dangerous to ignorance and delusion? Most definitely. :twothumbsup:
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
tomschwarz
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:31 am

Re: Can Buddhism be Dangerous?

Post by tomschwarz »

seeker242 wrote: Sat Nov 24, 2018 1:32 pm Dangerous to what? Dangerous to ignorance and delusion? Most definitely. :twothumbsup:
that is funny. ok so in all seriousness, that is my perspective.

so, life itself is quite dangerous, at its core.

buddhism is really good, at its core, i mean for humanity and other things with sensation.

and i dont want to burst your bubble (of course i do, but i am at least to some degree, sincerely and unconditionally compassionate, so if the bubble, like a blister, is doing some good, then bad on me for the passive-aggressive approach) but, buddhism might really not, in and of itself, have any sort of working that would be something like "powerful" or like a "magic potion" (small exception being seated meditation which does seem to magically counter anxiety) or even like a real medicine like antibiotics which can be good or really dangerous.

let me play the devils advocate... ..his holiness, the tremendous shining star and dali lama of tibet, .... ....he once said, that he had a friend who was not buddhist. and that person wanted to know about emptiness. so he explained it a bit. and that was scarry for this person. and though he wanted and wanted to learn this stuff, it scared him and made him shiver. ))))))))))))))))))) of course, i understand that. life if pretty f-d up. and it hurts and its scarry as all-%&/ some times. but that is not buddhism. that is life. so my point here, buddhism was not the best for this person. but that does not mean that buddhism is dangerous, the fuzzy area is that perhaps any sort of philosophy that is personally challenging can be negative, sure. it can scare you, or hurt your feelings, etc... so on that level, OK buddhism can be counter productive. That is a better term for it. I can agree that Buddhism can be counter productive, yes.

But Buddhism is not very serious stuff, like a chemical compound, which can be very serious and can cause scary things to happen if misused.

But hey, I could be wrong. So lets discuss this, if you disagree. Or laugh along if you agree, whatever ))))
i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA
User avatar
明安 Myoan
Former staff member
Posts: 2527
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:11 am

Re: Can Buddhism be Dangerous?

Post by 明安 Myoan »

buddhism might really not, in and of itself, have any sort of working that would be something like "powerful" or like a "magic potion"
With Dependent Origination, nothing arises or acts "in and of itself".
Buddhas don't exist without sentient beings.
When there is a disease to cure, medicine is needed.
But Buddhism is not very serious stuff
Birth and death, and all the suffering in between, are very serious.
Buddhism is uniquely poised to do something about that.

Have I missed the thrust of your argument? :shrug:
With a heart wandering in ignorance down this path and that, to guide me I simply say Namu-Amida-Butsu. -- Ippen

Reciting the Nembutsu and believing in birth in the Pure Land naturally give rise to the Three Minds and the Four Modes of Practice. -- Master Hōnen
User avatar
tomschwarz
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:31 am

Re: Can Buddhism be Dangerous?

Post by tomschwarz »

Monlam Tharchin wrote: Sat Nov 24, 2018 4:38 pm
buddhism might really not, in and of itself, have any sort of working that would be something like "powerful" or like a "magic potion"
With Dependent Origination, nothing arises or acts "in and of itself".
Buddhas don't exist without sentient beings.
When there is a disease to cure, medicine is needed.
But Buddhism is not very serious stuff
Birth and death, and all the suffering in between, are very serious.
Buddhism is uniquely poised to do something about that.

Have I missed the thrust of your argument? :shrug:
well lets see... ...i do have a thrust of my argument. the tender heart. and the empty mind. loving kindness. deepening my buddhist practice and helping others to do whatever comes next for them in their positive trajectory....

so enough about my thrust ))))))). ...i am very interested to know what you mean by "Buddhas don't exist without sentient beings." Can you please elaborate, and consider...
1) is the opposite true, buddas do exist with sentient beings? do you mean nirmanakaya, arizing in some conditioned existence but only to help people?
2) do buddhas have individual identity?
i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA
User avatar
明安 Myoan
Former staff member
Posts: 2527
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:11 am

Re: Can Buddhism be Dangerous?

Post by 明安 Myoan »

Greetings, Tom. :smile:
tomschwarz wrote:Can you please elaborate, and consider...
1) is the opposite true, buddas do exist with sentient beings? do you mean nirmanakaya, arizing in some conditioned existence but only to help people?
Samantabhadra Bodhisattva, 'The Universally Worthy Action Vow' (Rulu) wrote:Sentient beings are the tree roots, and Bodhisattvas and Buddhas are respectively the flowers and fruits. If one benefits sentient beings with the water of great compassion, one can develop the flowers and fruits of wisdom, becoming a Bodhisattva then a Buddha. Why? Because if Bodhisattvas benefit sentient beings with the water of great compassion, they can attain anuttara-samyak-sambodhi. Therefore, bodhi belongs to sentient beings. Without sentient beings, Bodhisattvas can never attain the unsurpassed sambodhi.
---
tomschwarz wrote:2) do buddhas have individual identity?
Malcolm wrote:It does not matter who anyone's yidam is since the continuum of pristine consciousness of all yidams is the same.

People have karmic relations with this or that practice. But in reality, everyone in Mahāyāna has the same yidam: buddhahood.
source
With a heart wandering in ignorance down this path and that, to guide me I simply say Namu-Amida-Butsu. -- Ippen

Reciting the Nembutsu and believing in birth in the Pure Land naturally give rise to the Three Minds and the Four Modes of Practice. -- Master Hōnen
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21590
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Can Buddhism be Dangerous?

Post by Grigoris »

I think this talk about "the dangers of teaching emptiness" is hyperbole.

Teachings on the five skandha are teachings on emptiness and they are basic and fundamental topics.

Dependent Origination is Sutta too.

If they were dangerous would the Buddha have taught them?

What can possibly be dangerous is if they are taught outside of the context of the Two Truths. This can possibly lead to misinterpretation.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
PeterC
Posts: 2733
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Can Buddhism be Dangerous?

Post by PeterC »

tomschwarz wrote: Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:30 pm Hello friends,

My point here, dont think to much of your"self" and your religion. At least in Buddhism, there is no god no devil and no magic(?). So you can powa or recite forbidden gobldiguck or tuomma or whatever. Buddhism only relates to the reality that surrounds your mind and your mind itself. As such, as Buddhism has it, your happiness depends on ethics, meditation and wisdom, a.k.a the practice of Buddhism or similar faith (based on similar practice).

Disagree? Is Buddhism Dangerous? If yes, and you like multiple choice, please answer with a numeric range, Buddhism is more or less dangerous than (number), or freestyle your mind in Buddhism danger words.

1 - sleeping/dreaming
2 - wake/thinking
3- walking/driving
4 - practicing any other religion
5 - mild mind altering (cafiene)
6 - mind altering (alchohol/marijuana/coke)
7 - mind transforming (lsd/psylosibon)
8 - death/bardo of dying
9 - birth
10 - end of humanity on earth

...that reminds me, would number 10 be a good thing in terms of safe or dangerous Buddhism?
Do you want to perhaps rephrase your question? I think I'm not alone when I say that I haven't got a clue what you're asking.
User avatar
SonamTashi
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:30 pm
Location: Utah

Re: Can Buddhism be Dangerous?

Post by SonamTashi »

I think the only danger is misunderstanding. The fear that the Dalai Lama describes the person having sounds a lot like a common thing that happens when people misunderstand emptiness in a nihilistic sense. When emptiness is properly understood, it isn't something to be feared.
:bow: :buddha1: :bow: :anjali: :meditate:
Yellow_13
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2018 5:10 pm

Re: Can Buddhism be Dangerous?

Post by Yellow_13 »

I've read the original message over and over again, and if I get things right, the whole idea is to ask how dangerous can Buddhism be since it's not "as serious" as other religions (I don't think that, I think it's his point) because you don't have rules enforced with an iron fist like in Islam or litanies, codified prayers like in Catholic and Orthodox Christianism, and as such you can think of it as a way of life, if not just a hobby or sorts. I don't quite get how it's supposed to be dangerous, but let's keep going.

Then, I think that the 1 to 10 sale represents the levels of danger : 1 being the lowest danger level (as when you're sleeping), 2 being when you're awake but not actively engaging in something, 3 when you're doing something physically, 4 when you're practicing another religion (?), 5 to 7 refer to the ddanger you put on your life when drinking alcohol or doing drugs, 8 is being threatened by death, 9 is something I don't get (birth? The level of pain and danger that a woman giving birth experiences?) and 10 being the maximal level of danger.

But that's all useless since I don't know what can be dangerous in that.

tomschwarz, по русски объяснить можешь? У тебя структура фраз такие же, как в русском языке.
User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: Can Buddhism be Dangerous?

Post by Wayfarer »

Perhaps the OP is a reference to the prohibition against 'teaching emptiness to the untrained'. It is number 11 on on this page.

And also, as is explained in the simile of the water-snake, which is also a simile referred to by Nagarjuna, it's important to grasp the meaning of the teaching in the correct way, otherwise it can lead to mistaken ideas, such as the idea that nothing is real at all (i.e. nihilism).

This is why the Buddha taught on many different levels, depending on the stage of development of those he was speaking to.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
User avatar
tomschwarz
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:31 am

Re: Can Buddhism be Dangerous?

Post by tomschwarz »

we all understand each other quite well. thank you. ochen priyatno s vami eto thema obsudits. ...i am trying to directly confront that last thread titled "Tummo" as being self-centered.

buddhism is about deepening our love for each other and revealing the insincerity and unhappiness of egoism and bravado. go deeper, and i see an array of fears that underlay my self-centered perspective. but the greatest generosity is fearlessness. what if you felt that nothing is dangerous? that could be an aspect of your personal fearlessness. what if you were fearless? not afraid to be alone, not afraid to meditate, not afraid to care and to die... probably would be positive. But then, how would a sense of dangerous buddhism support your practice? at least we can agree that we should not fear buddhism?

it seems to me, based on the diamond sutra chpt 6, that an expert in buddhism would be interested in abandoning buddhist dharma all together (to cross the river you have to abandon the raft). but instead, to take time out of your practice to instruct on the dangers of buddhism over and above the 10 points of dangerous life that i mentioned, is a mistake. i mean, which was more dangerous in your personal life, fear or buddhism?

My personal impression of talk about dangerous buddhist practice, is that it is an attempt to own and pedal fear that your ego defines, protects and flashes like the badge of a college diploma, and inserting that artificially into the undeserving egolessness of buddhist practice, out of restlessness and fear.

i respect what we call skillfull means, what to say when to whom. i respect the heart level reaction from sonam tashi regarding fear of emptiness. but that is all a far cry from prostalatizing about the dangerous "voodoo" aspects of advanced buddhism which do not exist.
i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA
User avatar
SonamTashi
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:30 pm
Location: Utah

Re: Can Buddhism be Dangerous?

Post by SonamTashi »

If I understand correctly, you're specifically asking about esoteric practices like tummo.

As I said previously, Buddhadharma is only dangerous if misunderstood or improperly practiced. As such, especially in regards to something like tummo, it is necessary to learn from an authentic teacher in order to safely practice. To be quite frank, if you do not belong to a Vajrayana school, then such subjects are really none of your business. Referring to these things as voodoo is quite disrespectful. If these issues are not a part of your practice then they're really irrelevant.

These practices are dangerous in the same way a meal could be dangerous: if you prepare a meal properly it is not dangerous at all, but if improperly prepared, it could become poisonous. Similarly, if you eat too quickly you might choke. If you rush into a practice without proper learning and preparation, you might choke on the dharma. If properly prepared and properly practiced, the dharma is not dangerous at all.
:bow: :buddha1: :bow: :anjali: :meditate:
User avatar
tomschwarz
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:31 am

Re: Can Buddhism be Dangerous?

Post by tomschwarz »

SonamTashi wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:32 pm If I understand correctly, you're specifically asking about esoteric practices like tummo.

As I said previously, Buddhadharma is only dangerous if misunderstood or improperly practiced. As such, especially in regards to something like tummo, it is necessary to learn from an authentic teacher in order to safely practice. To be quite frank, if you do not belong to a Vajrayana school, then such subjects are really none of your business. Referring to these things as voodoo is quite disrespectful. If these issues are not a part of your practice then they're really irrelevant.

These practices are dangerous in the same way a meal could be dangerous: if you prepare a meal properly it is not dangerous at all, but if improperly prepared, it could become poisonous. Similarly, if you eat too quickly you might choke. If you rush into a practice without proper learning and preparation, you might choke on the dharma. If properly prepared and properly practiced, the dharma is not dangerous at all.
thank you sonam. this uncovers a great array of interesting topics... probably top 3 with respective questions are:
1) why is comparing any part of buddhism to voodoo an insult? it is the national religion of many countries, are you saying that there is something wrong with voodoo? what?

2) the reason for my initial "pick 10" things more or less dangerous than buddhism is to get some context, and to avoid a nebulous "danger of buddhism" that is, no more, or less, dangerous than anything else. a good jumping off question, is tummo more dangerous than samatha? why, exactly, yes/no?

3) my short, individual existence is infinitely close to meaningless (assuming infinite time and space). with that said, assuming that something is not my business, what potentially could be my business? e.g. anything that i am interested in? or do you have to respect it first for it to be your business?
i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21590
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Can Buddhism be Dangerous?

Post by Grigoris »

tomschwarz wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 6:30 pm1) why is comparing any part of buddhism to voodoo an insult? it is the national religion of many countries, are you saying that there is something wrong with voodoo? what?
Εarth calling tomschwarz! You were the one to initially refer to voodoo with negative connotations:
tomschwarz wrote:but that is all a far cry from prostalatizing about the dangerous "voodoo" aspects of advanced buddhism which do not exist.
Do you consider yourself a Buddhist? As such are you incapable of judging which are the unwholesome elements of voodoo?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
tomschwarz
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:31 am

Re: Can Buddhism be Dangerous?

Post by tomschwarz »

Samantabhadra Bodhisattva, 'The Universally Worthy Action Vow' (Rulu) wrote:Sentient beings are the tree roots, and Bodhisattvas and Buddhas are respectively the flowers and fruits
beautiful, thank you

So.... ...If I am a Buddhist, which is correct, I am a Buddhist, I should be able to understand what is unwholesome about at least one (or more) variants of a voodoo practitioners religious life. ....No.

In short,
the dangerous "voodoo" aspects of advanced buddhism which do not exist.
...is complex. Yes from our Buddhist practice this statement could be ok/constructive in relation to the fourth noble truth. This sentiment of rejecting "dangerous "voodoo" aspects of advanced buddhism" could be seen as going hand in hand with his holiness the dalai lama repeating in almost every other teaching that the buddha instructed us to use our minds and our personal experience to judge if any given dharma is meaningful, consistant, logical, or not.... (Like biting and testing a gold coin)

But I can tell you from my heart that i do not feel that my buddhism is better than another person's voodoo. Buddhism is better for me yes. But buddhism is not better than voodoo in general. I say that because i have good friends that practice hatian voodoo and i am no better than they are... ...well ))) we each have our strengths....

We can discuss this more, but so am I hope thst you will also speak for yourself
i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA
User avatar
tomschwarz
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:31 am

Re: Can Buddhism be Dangerous?

Post by tomschwarz »

That is funny.. so am i hope, is Sonam, i hope.... ....that you will write your opinions in response to my communication.
i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21590
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Can Buddhism be Dangerous?

Post by Grigoris »

tomschwarz wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:49 pmWe can discuss this more, but so am I hope thst you will also speak for yourself
If I told you that your response is so unintelligible for me that I have no idea what we are discussing, would that surprise you?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
muni
Posts: 4943
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Can Buddhism be Dangerous?

Post by muni »

Wake thinking nr 2
Hello,

Not Buddhism is dangerous but the clinging to it. Like clinging to emptiness, clinging to solidness of dharma... All conventional Dharma is guiding ice cream, not to collect on the beach in Florida but to eat-use and repeat as long as necessary. A teaching of Buddha becomes another neurosis when there is clinging to it as object.

Wake thinking, look directly in thoughts, there is no shape, no lasting, and all what is filling thoughts, images, words, is of same essence as thoughts, being dragged in thoughts then we are a thought and all are objects. Then we are a paper boat on the waves of the vast ocean.

Buddhism guides to see in own mind, what is not helpful, H H Dalai Lama says to criticise the mud there.
Dharma-teaching-methods guide to fade clinging habits by using them. ( i mean the methods) Tummo helpful? Then Tummo. Not? Then not. Voilà. As long as there remains no samsaric dust as I great, I small, then all can be medicine.

Things followed on nr 2 can be good helps to get lost in the stream of thinking, losing heart. Nr 1 is influenced artwork of reflections by all this and nr 2 is actually not so very different from nr 1.

Damned coffee.

Ps I do not understand as well but I felt the strong need to ramble something.
Conversely, viewing the self as a mere convention or as a designated label for our dynamic stream of experience - consciousness in relation to the body and the world - is in harmony with the interdependent and impermanent nature of reality; and leads to a state of well-being grounded in wisdom, altruism, compassion, and inner freedom.
https://www.matthieuricard.org/en/blog/ ... he-self--2

Simplicity reveals the nature of the mind behind the veil of restless thoughts.
https://www.matthieuricard.org/en/blog/ ... plicity--2
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”