How to refute the idea that Buddhism might be actually "too extreme"?

Upvote:0

If you find a branch of Buddhism without ceremonies and beliefs, you could easily avoid the type of imposed belief you are talking about.

Or if you are a brave soul, you could take the writings of as many true teachers as you have need of and put it into practice with no belief.

I would start with Roshi Suzuki that does not advocate for much beyond sitting with the beginner's mind www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/zenmind.pdf

If you do not find that to your liking you could try Dogen who is quite verbose about his path.

If you want open minded, the Dalai Lama though thoroughly a Tibetan Buddhist embraces science, psychology, other religions and other people choosing a different way

This ceremony is the door to compassion. It is unlocking beginner's mind in an applied way.

http://www.dalailama.com/teachings/training-the-mind/generating-the-mind-for-enlightenment

Look at the flower sermon for the ultimate simplicity in Buddhism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_Sermon There is no belief in that, just the experience of what is.

Upvote:1

There are many different forms/sects of Buddhism. Some are more "monkish" than others. I've been following the Lotus Sutra and the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin, which advocates using our desires and attachments to fuel our enlightenment rather than eradicating them.

My view is that the whole priesthood/monk phenomenon was an aspect of history. Cultural and historical, not core to the Buddhist belief system. You need a group who takes on responsibility to help lead, but they don't need to be monks. This is the kind of organization that is emerging in the Soka Gakkai, where I practice (sgi-usa.org).

Hope this helps!

Upvote:37

It's kinda funny to see how we westerners stereotypically misunderstand Dharma as postulating some kind of globally applicable set of absolute unconditional prescriptions. Is this not taking it to the extreme? :) Buddha's teaching should not be taken out of context and unwittingly extrapolated.

Did Buddha say lay people should "not marry and do not have any children"? No, he said they should avoid sexual misconduct.

Did Buddha say all lay people should become monks? No, in fact he suggested that monks should not work and are instead to live in dependence on lay community (begging, accepting donations).

Did Buddha teach "self-sacrifice"? No, he taught middle-way: by looking after ourselves we look after others, by looking after others we look after ourselves.

Did Buddha teach radical ascetic rejection of everything? No, what he taught was letting go of obsessions, preconceptions, biases, overgeneralizations, irrational expectations; he taught not to assign too much importance to petty stuff that does not deserve it; he taught to be analytical; he taught to be practical and flexible and wise.

Buddha said, tanha (thirst, craving) is the source of dukkha (troubled mind, emotional suffering). This means, whenever you crave for things to be different than they are, right now, you suffer. This does not mean you should not participate in life, this means if we fully accept what we have, and work with it, instead of wishing it were otherwise, we will not generate emotional suffering.

Is this not the most rational doctrine ever?

More post

Search Posts

Related post