The Propogation of Buddhism
-
Actually this reply was headed for TheGoodEarth's new topic, but I realised his topic title wasn't very suitable so I created my new one to reply one of his and herzog's messages.
Here is it (original discussions at http://buddhism.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=268114&page=9):Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:
Both philosophy and religion must BOTH be sought and spread.
I am not following these long arguments between AEN and Herzog. I shall try to focus on propagation. First we must distinguish between religion and philosophy. To me, both are spread but not necessarily evangelised. More correctly, philosophy is sought, religion is spread.
Because there must first be a seeker of philosophy and religion, then later learning the philosophy and religion. And to learn the philosophy and religion, they must first be spread (I prefer to actually just say 'teach'). The same principle goes to every single academic and non-academic subject in the world. And to spread education and knowledge to the world, we need teachers.
Anyway, both 'philosophy' and 'religion' cannot quite rightly describe what Buddhism is about, nevertheless, the same principle applies.There are fundamental differences between Buddhism and Christianity - in form and in practice. Forget for a moment about the moral part.
Yes, very true.
I shall not dwell on the differences. There are many who have done this.
Christianity and Buddhism are propagated differently. History is full of recorded truths. Christianity rode on wars, conquests and colonisations. There were holy wars and crusades. Missionaries were part of these campaigns in the name of spreading God's word. Indeed there were persecutions and forceful conversions. The Catholic Church itself had persecuted many. These are truths never told or admitted. Christians today read/study the bible without reference to history.
Central to Christianity is Creator-God, Sin, Saviour and Eternal Life.
Buddhism was not considered a religion (depending on how religion is defined). There is no Creator-God or the One God, hence no war was fought in the name of God or for God. Buddhism emphasizes on looking inwards, seeking the way out of suffering. Each individual reach that goal not thru a Saviour (if you missed the First, there is a Second).
No fanaticism
Of Buddhism alone can it be affirmed it is free from all fanaticism. Its aim being to produce in every man a thorough internal transforming by self-conquest, how can it have recourse to might or money or even persuasion for effecting conversion? The Buddha has only shown the way to salvation, and it is left to each individual to decide for himself if he would follow it.
- Prof. Lakshmi Narasu, "The Essence of Buddhism"Buddhism was also spread but not as 'evangelised' as Christianity.
Yes, Buddhism does not require evangelism, just as Biology or Physics do not need to be evangelised. Because what Buddhism teaches is based on observable realities and self-realisation and transformation, everyone can do that and see the results.
But there needs to be enough teachers who can teach the world, just as there needs to be enough teachers and educators to increase the literacy and education level in the developing countries.
So anyway you're right that Buddhism is also spread but not 'evangelised' as Christianity.
There are lots of 'developing countries' spiritually (such as the West) and they are developing quite fast (i.e Buddhism is being spread quite fast).If today you say there are more Christians, then the simple truth is due to the very zealous and even aggressive evangelism. Personally, I see less 'witnessing' by Buddhists than by Christians. Also, Christianity offers an easier way to Eternal Life than Buddhism's offer of Emptiness. It is easier to accept that one has sinned than to accept that 'there is suffering'.
Yes, very true, and also have to do with the ignorance of what Buddhism is about... Buddhism is deep and profound and requires a wise person to get the message across.
I speak from experience.
Buddhism can be more zealous in trying to spread his own teachings, though not the kind of zealousness or evangelism we see in other religions. Also, our intention must be out of pure compassion to help others, and we must see that person's conditions to apply the right remedy to them. -
I think this is just as silly (in fact, completely similar) as asking, "If you don't want to be dogmatic, then why seek a physics or biology teacher? Just do the experiments on your own and then prove it."Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:If you don't want to be dogmatic, then why seek a teacher? Do the experiments on your own and then prove it. If it doesn't work, then the philosophy is false.
Hello, first of all, just like any subject, you need to learn the topics of the subject matter, and also the proper way to conduct the experiment. Similarly you need to have the right View in Buddhism, and know how to practise correctly, before you can attain Enlightenment. You need a teacher who can guide you, correct you, and help you on your spiritual path. Just like you need a physics or biology teacher when you are still studying.
If you want to see the truth yourself, then you have to follow what the Buddha taught to attain enlightenment. If the Buddha from his experience teach that you must do A, but you do Z, of course it doesn't work and you won't see results.
If all subjects that can be experimented also requires you to have right concepts and knowledge and know the right way to conduct an experiment, then how can Buddhism be any different, being similarly another subject that can be experimented and seen for yourself!? Obviously like I said before Buddhism can be experienced for yourself. But if you're an idiot at it, how would you even begin to start with? -
Actually, this is not my new topic though I made a reply post in the thread about Tooth. But its OK, if there is a focused discussion here.
First, replying to AEN - there is a distinction b/w philosophy and religion. Let me take the secular definitions only. Philosophy are 'thoughtful' thoughts by thinkers and whom we attribute their thinking and thoughts to being profound, insightful and wise. I would rank my great-grandmother as a philosopher. Religion is generally defined as a system of belief. Those in IT would know what 'system' means. That is, there are components, parts, elements in a system.
I would say that religion can include philosophy. Philosophy is not necessary a religion. Therefore, I would not consider philosophy and religion as ONE.
OK, let me state my definition of religion (feel free to disagree or refine):
It is a belief system consisting of the following elements -
1) A founder (usually a human being!) whose thoughts were so profound that there was a large following. These body of thoughts became 'teaching'. In the beginning, the teaching was focused on social-human-moral issues - way of life, righteousness, doing good and so forth.
2) The founder was elevated to exalted status - neo-god or even God.
3) The worship of 'GOD' or similar - I use this general name to refer to a spiritual, cosmic, supernatural, almighty, omnipresent 'personality'. Any other name is acceptable so long as the reference or attributes are about the same.
4) Rites, rituals, customs, traditions, ceremonies being absorbed, incorporated, modified to cater to the customary practice and social norms while some of these are specifically created as part of the process of worship. -
Yes I would agree with what you saidOriginally posted by TheGoodEarth:Actually, this is not my new topic though I made a reply post in the thread about Tooth. But its OK, if there is a focused discussion here.
First, replying to AEN - there is a distinction b/w philosophy and religion. Let me take the secular definitions only. Philosophy are 'thoughtful' thoughts by thinkers and whom we attribute their thinking and thoughts to being profound, insightful and wise. I would rank my great-grandmother as a philosopher. Religion is generally defined as a system of belief. Those in IT would know what 'system' means. That is, there are components, parts, elements in a system.
I would say that religion can include philosophy. Philosophy is not necessary a religion. Therefore, I would not consider philosophy and religion as ONE.
OK, let me state my definition of religion (feel free to disagree or refine):
It is a belief system consisting of the following elements -
1) A founder (usually a human being!) whose thoughts were so profound that there was a large following. These body of thoughts became 'teaching'. In the beginning, the teaching was focused on social-human-moral issues - way of life, righteousness, doing good and so forth.
2) The founder was elevated to exalted status - neo-god or even God.
3) The worship of 'GOD' or similar - I use this general name to refer to a spiritual, cosmic, supernatural, almighty, omnipresent 'personality'. Any other name is acceptable so long as the reference or attributes are about the same.
4) Rites, rituals, customs, traditions, ceremonies being absorbed, incorporated, modified to cater to the customary practice and social norms while some of these are specifically created as part of the process of worship.
-
Then who taught those who founded the scientific theories anyway? How do people know if the theories work? They do experiments on their own without prejudice, i.e without actually knowing about so-called theory provided. But in our education, time is money or opportunity, hence we need teachers to guide us to the quickest path. Would you like to compare religion to education?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I think this is just as silly (in fact, completely similar) as asking, "If you don't want to be dogmatic, then why seek a physics or biology teacher? Just do the experiments on your own and then prove it."
Hello, first of all, just like any subject, you need to learn the topics of the subject matter, and also the proper way to conduct the experiment. Similarly you need to have the right View in Buddhism, and know how to practise correctly, before you can attain Enlightenment. You need a teacher who can guide you, correct you, and help you on your spiritual path. Just like you need a physics or biology teacher when you are still studying.
If you want to see the truth yourself, then you have to follow what the Buddha taught to attain enlightenment. If the Buddha from his experience teach that you must do A, but you do Z, of course it doesn't work and you won't see results.
If all subjects that can be experimented also requires you to have right concepts and knowledge and know the right way to conduct an experiment, then how can Buddhism be any different, being similarly another subject that can be experimented and seen for yourself!? Obviously like I said before Buddhism can be experienced for yourself. But if you're an idiot at it, how would you even begin to start with?
Having a "Right View" taught to you, is in fact indoctrination. In order words, can Buddhism be said as having no logic as you said it is a requirement per se for understanding Buddhism. Otherwise, logic can be applied to it to determine right from wrong. -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
Yes but observation is linked to experiment, experiment linked with observation, they are not two. If you are practising the Buddhist method to observe the nature of reality, you will need to know what you are looking out for, and what observation you will see.
Then who taught those who founded the scientific theories anyway? How do people know if the theories work? They do experiments on their own without prejudice, i.e without actually knowing about so-called theory provided. But in our education, time is money or opportunity, hence we need teachers to guide us to the quickest path. Would you like to compare religion to education?
Actually if you don't know the teachings that's theoretically not harmful, but most of the time there are just a whole bunch of confusion without the right View, and that is what hinders awakening and practise. And also you need to know the right way to practise.
You said "time is money or opportunity", how is Buddhism any different
Buddha found the right path to Enlightenment after discarding several methods that he deemed would not work in the search of the cure for Suffering -- like Ascetism, or entering the 7th and 8th Jhana, all the knowledge he learnt from his teachers which he found, didn't bring about enlightenment.
Then finally having remembered his spontaneous jhanic experience at his young age, he dwelled into it, then in 49 days attained Enlightenment.
SO you mean you want to spend many years of your precious life being a naked ascetic undergoing self-torture, practise very hard to enter the 7th and 8th jhana, before deciding to practise the Buddha's method and attain enlightenment?
Who would want to, when there is a faster and better way? Some more time tested by countless others who have been enlightened to the dharma by practising what the Buddha taught and can testify for it.Having a "Right View" taught to you, is in fact indoctrination. In order words, can Buddhism be said as having no logic as you said it is a requirement per se for understanding Buddhism. Otherwise, logic can be applied to it to determine right from wrong.
You mean teaching physics and biology is indoctrination?
I wouldn't say so. More like having right View is the prequisite to effective experiment/practise.
Question: Were there instances where meditators say, "Well, look here - I want to learn meditation only and don't want to listen to what the Buddha says."?
Ven. Gunaratana : Sure, in fact some have requested only for vipassana and to exclude the Dhamma. Here, there is some misunderstanding of what vipassana is. You cannot study vipassana without dealing with the core teachings of the Buddha. Therefore, we don't use labels and words. We just explain the truth and soon they will realise the interconnectedness of all aspects of meditation. To those who are really fanatic and rigid - they will eventually drop out. But if they want to persist, then we teach simple type of meditation and tell them that their meditation will not be successful and meaningful. You cannot divorce meditation from the Dhamma and there are many serious meditators who know this.
In conversation with Ven. Gunaratana, For You vol 215 03/2007 -
But yes the most important thing is in seeing, not just believing.
-
Under the topic of propagation (not just Buddhism), how is this carried out and by who?
-
Experienced, qualified teachers.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Under the topic of propagation (not just Buddhism), how is this carried out and by who?
How to carry out? Proper place, proper time, proper teachings (i.e depending on that person's level of understanding, etc).
I'm not a teacher, so I'm not exactly the right person to answer this. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Directly teaching physics and biology is a form of indoctrination. Who says it isn't? It is only when experiments are conducted then the student understands the logic behind and accepts the truth from the subjects. Hence Buddhism is indoctrinating people not to accept that suffering is part and parcel of life as per what Prince Siddatha understood in his search of the escape from suffering.
You mean teaching physics and biology is indoctrination?
I wouldn't say so. More like having right View is the prequisite to effective experiment/practise.
[b]Question: Were there instances where meditators say, "Well, look here - I want to learn meditation only and don't want to listen to what the Buddha says."?
Ven. Gunaratana : Sure, in fact some have requested only for vipassana and to exclude the Dhamma. Here, there is some misunderstanding of what vipassana is. You cannot study vipassana without dealing with the core teachings of the Buddha. Therefore, we don't use labels and words. We just explain the truth and soon they will realise the interconnectedness of all aspects of meditation. To those who are really fanatic and rigid - they will eventually drop out. But if they want to persist, then we teach simple type of meditation and tell them that their meditation will not be successful and meaningful. You cannot divorce meditation from the Dhamma and there are many serious meditators who know this.
In conversation with Ven. Gunaratana, For You vol 215 03/2007[/b] -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
Then in your definition, I think indoctrination is useful as long as one must experience it and not just blindly belief.
Directly teaching physics and biology is a form of indoctrination. Who says it isn't?It is only when experiments are conducted then the student understands the logic behind and accepts the truth from the subjects.
Yes yes of course. This is most important. -
What the fark are you saying? Don't add in words that I never posted. I didn't say experience, I said experimented. Like some people claiming to have experimented with illegal drugs, some people experiment with religion.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Then in your definition, I think indoctrination is useful as long as one must experience it and not just blindly belief.
"Religion is the opiate of the masses."Karl Marx. -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
And who the fark are you to stop me from adding my own words?
What the fark are you saying? Don't add in words that I never posted.I didn't say experience, I said experimented.
Same.
Like some people claiming to have experimented with illegal drugs, some people experiment with religion.
"Religion is the opiate of the masses."Karl Marx.
And religion is an opiate of the masses only when it is founded on blind faith (please read this topic Faith in Belief Systems) -
What's the difference b/w a teacher and a preacher?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Experienced, qualified teachers. -
Ya ,that is when Karl Marx want to write Das Kapital, He just want to add salt the emotional woes of the Russian ProletariatOriginally posted by Herzog_Zwei:What the fark are you saying? Don't add in words that I never posted. I didn't say experience, I said experimented. Like some people claiming to have experimented with illegal drugs, some people experiment with religion.
"Religion is the opiate of the masses."Karl Marx. -
Same except preach has more religious connotations.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:What's the difference b/w a teacher and a preacher?
teach /titʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[teech] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, taught, teach·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to impart knowledge of or skill in; give instruction in: She teaches mathematics.
2. to impart knowledge or skill to; give instruction to: He teaches a large class.
–verb (used without object)
3. to impart knowledge or skill; give instruction.
–noun
preach /pritʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[preech] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to proclaim or make known by sermon (the gospel, good tidings, etc.).
2. to deliver (a sermon).
3. to advocate or inculcate (religious or moral truth, right conduct, etc.) in speech or writing.
–verb (used without object)
4. to deliver a sermon.
5. to give earnest advice, as on religious or moral subjects or the like.
6. to do this in an obtrusive or tedious way. -
Which is the better way?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Same except preach has more religious connotations. -
Going by the definitions, teaching and preaching is essentially the same, only the subject is different.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Which is the better way?
Teaching means teach from text book, preaching means preach from scripture? Something like that. -
There is a great difference between teaching and preaching.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Going by the definitions, teaching and preaching is essentially the same, only the subject is different.
Teaching means teach from text book, preaching means preach from scripture? Something like that.
In teaching, your motive and motivation is to impart knowledge and insight. Your goal is the understanding of the subject (e.g. Dhamma) you are teaching.
In preaching, your motive and motivation is to proselytise. Your goal is the conversion of the subject (person) you are preaching. -
Ok.. then in this definition, teaching is definitely better. Dharma is being taught in order that others may gain insights and transformation, and liberation. The teachings are taught, not 'evangelised'.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:There is a great difference between teaching and preaching.
In teaching, your motive and motivation is to impart knowledge and insight. Your goal is the understanding of the subject (e.g. Dhamma) you are teaching.
In preaching, your motive and motivation is to proselytise. Your goal is the conversion of the subject (person) you are preaching.
No fanaticism
Of Buddhism alone can it be affirmed it is free from all fanaticism. Its aim being to produce in every man a thorough internal transforming by self-conquest, how can it have recourse to might or money or even persuasion for effecting conversion? The Buddha has only shown the way to salvation, and it is left to each individual to decide for himself if he would follow it.
- Prof. Lakshmi Narasu, "The Essence of Buddhism"