Ai thought the discussion on buddhism from the “just be positive” thread really needed its own thread for a more in depth analysis and debate on merits verses drawbacks.
Am I the only one who finds the idea of analyzing and debating the merits and drawbacks of a particular spiritual path to be a bit strange? If we add comparisons between several different paths that gets even stranger… to me anyway.
Well the whole “merits/drawbacks” thing has its basis in what you find important. For example, if you find freedom of thought important, you will find propaganda’s drawbacks and none of its merits. If you feel the need to control the masses, propaganda has major merits and few drawbacks. Its all in perspective. So, with that in mind, we can analise different memes to see how they could help or hinder our rewilding. The discussion as ai see it thus far is: “Buddhism disconnects from materiality, so it hinders rewilding” on the one hand and “Buddhism gets one in a good mindset, so it helps rewilding” on the other. Ai forget exactly what TJ said, though. (Gimme feedback, guys. That was a fair interperetation, right?) The ongoing goal of the discussions we have here, as it seems to me, is to facilitate rewilding in all members in any way we can. Does that make sense? (metaforically, having discussions on which path has the most ripe berries for the picking along the way)
It seems to me that Buddhism is about examining yourself. Really taking the time to explore your inner space.
Western minds have a tendancy to follow reason. It’s what they are taught to do. Find something that sounds reasonable, and then apply the Will to do that thing. The concept of rewilding sounds reasonable, so I’m going to go spend a week in the woods learning how to identify edible plants.
My experiance of Buddhism is that one is attempting to overcome this dependance on the mind’s approval. I’m not doing what I do for any reason. I’m not doing it because I agree with the ideals. I’m not doing it because I think it’s the Right thing to do.
I’m going to go spend a week in the woods because my whole Being wants it.
We are taught, or have beat into us, that we must “use our heads.” All of our actions must be explainable. You can’t go around doing what ever you feel like! There are rules in this world!
I don’t think Buddhism has any answers in and of itself. It seems more like a system for self discovery. Sit quietly for a while and listen to what your mind and body are doing. Don’t apply your will, just let yourself be. Then ask yourself “What am I like when I’m not trying to be anything?”
All religions have politics, sects, sacred text, ect. People have been arguing about them for thousands of years and will probably continue to argue about them long after I am dead.
Hating Buddhism, or any religion, is wasteful. A wise rewilder approaches religion like a raspberry thicket. Carefully reaching between the thorns to pull out the sweet fruits.
In all honesty, I don’t really want to discuss Buddhism. If a person digs through the forum archives they’ll find me ranting about it. But anymore, this or that modern religion doesn’t really bother me per se.
The modern “get over it, move on” notion bothers me. When I’ve talked about Buddhism in the past (and really, this goes for Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and what the heck Neo-shamanism too), I usually talk about its history, its origins. What folks, who self-identify as Buddhists (and thus the ancestors of those who self-identify as Buddhists today), have done in the name of Buddhism.
Buddhists, in Asia, killed more shamans than Stalin.
Buddhists, in China, and specifically Zen buddhists, coerced, converted, and dispossessed Taoists of their holy places, their holy people, and often built monasteries right on top of the site of where these folks lived and worshipped, exactly as the Catholics did in Central America to Mayan temples.
What does this have to do with Buddhists today? It means Buddhism doesn’t just boil down to a set of self-development tools. Animism has a far richer tradition of self-development tools (call me biased). Buddhism refers to an institution, a modern religion.
Now mostly folks who have experienced a lot of help and support from the Buddhist tradition will dismiss this history, cite how things have changed, or dispute it. I don’t dispute that Buddhism has some good stuff to teach us; so does Scientology. In the beginning. But if you stick with religions long enough you become inheritors of their original aims, as institutions.
Institutionalized religions always have an agenda, different from the person they have lionized (Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, etc.). They have a history, and the history always sucks.
I don’t want anyone to feel bad about their chosen religion; but I strongly, strongly believe that we cannot run away from the origins of our religions anymore than we can run away from our ancestral ghosts.
1 Like
http://pudgyindian2.blogspot.com/2008/08/olympics-protests.html
You’ll have to scroll down, to the part right after “But wait! There’s more!”
Hmm good point willem.
As far as i see, there are two ways you can talk about the beliefs of a buddhist or what “buddhism” entails. There is for example, what we would ccalled institutionalised buddhism. And of course with that there are lots of politics, as with any other institution. And then there are those who have gone beyond institutions.
for example, when talking about “taoist”, one can talk about a daoist from china, who is a part of a very large family based institutionilsed religion. But then, I am more than positive that any wise man, be it Jesus, Buddha, Lao-Tzu, ever had in mind an institutionalized religion. In fact if either of these people saw what people do in the name of the religion they started they would be spinning in their graves now.
I find it strange that Zen buddhist’s would do terrible things to Daoists. The problem i think comes in here as my RS prof puts it “there is religion as is in the books, and scriptures, and then there is what you see around you today”. Neither of the great men of Daoism, would ever have wanted to be worshipped. All they did was to pass on the wisdom of the older shaman-kings that lived in a time long before even them. Lao-Tzu for example in Dao de Ching, constantly makes refferences to the “olden days” of those kings, and even more so with chuang tzu. If one were to follow the wisdom of these men, Zen buddhism, as was “originally intended” is rather a beautiful amalgamation of Daoism and buddha’s beliefs.
Not to say of course that Animism and Zen/DAoism are exclusive in any way. On the contrary, I am both an animist and a very hardy Zen Buddhist. I do not go to monastaries, or involve myself with buddhist insititutions, I believe them to be against buddha’s teaching. I simply follow the teachings left behind by the Buddha, vedas, Chuang-Tzu and Lao-Tzu. I also believe none of these were the original source of these beliefs, nor are they exclisive in any way. They all in the end, in my mind, only point the way to a greater truth, as Lao-tzu said, one cannot speak of the Dao, or teach it, it has to be experianced, too me all these wise men are trying to talk about the exact same thing but do it differently, perhaps if I were to tell you of my understanding of things, even IF they WERE complete, it would probably differ from anyone elses, thats the wonder of reality, each experiances it differently, and yet it’s the same reality. LIke i said, master Lao’s beliefs are just a reworking of the practices and beliefs under which the old so called benovolant “shaman kings” operated a long time ago in china, at a time when the chinese still lived in tribes, back when the aboroginal tribes of america’s were still young.
-Tj
Hey Willem,
I’m curious about the actions by Buddhists, especially Zen Buddhists that you mentioned. I know that when Islam came to India, Buddhism basically acted totally passively and was wiped out. Hinduism resisted and is still around.
So, is the place where the Buddhists did these things China? Or Japan?
Just curious
Opening A Mountain describes one sphere of it, but I got my “Buddhists killed more shamans than Stalin” line from Martin Prechtel, who I think referred to the steppe shamans throughout Central Asia.
So, essentially, look at China and Central Asia.
The Imperial Japan did a lot to expel Buddhism actually, and made Shintoism a state religion (Taoism as a capital ‘R’ religion came about the same way in China, to expel evangelical Buddhism).
Assuming by “spiritual path” you mean any given “religion” (sorry, four years of studying religion has made these terms meaningless to me) no. Whenever I encounter a religion/philosophy/spirituality that I have not encountered before it is one of the first things I want to know are its pros and cons, from my own perspective, of course.
[quote=“This One, post:4, topic:1269”]It seems more like a system for self discovery. Sit quietly for a while and listen to what your mind and body are doing. Don’t apply your will, just let yourself be. Then ask yourself “What am I like when I’m not trying to be anything?”
All religions have politics, sects, sacred text, ect. People have been arguing about them for thousands of years and will probably continue to argue about them long after I am dead.
Hating Buddhism, or any religion, is wasteful. A wise rewilder approaches religion like a raspberry thicket. Carefully reaching between the thorns to pull out the sweet fruits.[/quote]
I have to disagree somewhat. Buddhism is focused on transcending the self (“atman” in Sanskrit) because the self has no inherent existence. Also, not all religions have sacred texts, especially not primitive religions! I find your metaphor for rewilding religion quite apt.
[quote=“Willem, post:5, topic:1269”]But if you stick with religions long enough you become inheritors of their original aims, as institutions.
Institutionalized religions always have an agenda, different from the person they have lionized (Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, etc.). They have a history, and the history always sucks.
I don’t want anyone to feel bad about their chosen religion; but I strongly, strongly believe that we cannot run away from the origins of our religions anymore than we can run away from our ancestral ghosts.[/quote]
There is no lack of criticism of institutionalized religion in contemporary discourse. However, it now seems to me that most institutionalized religions are civilized religions. Not that the two are interchangable, but perhaps institutional religion is a subset of civilized religion. What do you think?
I agree, actually. I don’t think that I can run away from Christianity. And, frankly, I wasn’t even raised with a particularly strong Christian exposure (some, certainly, but not especially strongly so). Neither can I run away from my germanic roots.
So… what to do? I know what path I’ve chosen (to rewild those relationships, to integrate my “spirit of heritage” with my “spirit of place”). What paths have others chosen?
Jhereg, the phrase you used, “spirit of heritage”, sounds very interesting to me. My personal heritage comes from white settlers who emigrated to Turtle Island from Europe (Scandinavia and Romania), and while I feel love for my family as individuals, I feel very repulsed by much of their cultural worldviews - the typical white settler, agriculturalist worldview, which sees the land and non-humans as objects to be used, in the process of “making a living.” And their religious beliefs reflected this worldview, completely.
So while I respect the traditions and cultures of my ancestors, and want to acknowledge where I came from, I also strongly reject the “civilized”, self-denying, land-abusing aspects of my heritage. They stand in complete opposition to the animistic, land-loving life I want to live.
This also relates to what Willem said, about our inability to “run away” from the roots of whatever religion we follow. I also cannot turn a blind eye to the violent, civilized roots of my heritage.
Jessica
One of the concepts that dwells (and fairly frequently pops up, btw) in my heritage is “frith”. Often, folks interpret it as “peace” (or sometimes “freedom”). But, really, I don’t think that does it justice. It’s more a description of a social bond, one that often comes to mind whenever I hear/read indigenous folk talk about their own culture. For now, how about I (over)simplify it to “family comes first”.
Clearly, this alone does not indicate a culture that respects the land. However, if we understand family to include our “landbase”, the concept takes on a new depth and significance. In our situation, as “rewilders in a strange land”, also brings up the question: “Who do we include in our immediate family?”. For me, I feel that I must include several folks who have no concept of rewilding at all, even as I also accept the land (and animals and plants and…) that we depend on as family. That has a real impact on how I move forward. For example, it requires that I continue to operate within civ’s rules (well… mostly), but it also requires that I find effective methods to safeguard the land as much as I can. Out of this comes my focus on re-integrating “wild gardens” into the land and rebuilding ecological “webs” in unobtrusive ways.
There… an example of what I mean by integrating my “spirit of heritage” to my “spirit of place”.
I completely agree that the concept of “running away” forms the foundation of this discussion. Neither do I intend to turn a blind eye to the violence and ecological destruction in my heritage. Instead, I plan to look it full in the face, recognize it for what it is and wrestle with it until I can get what’s valuable and precious away and in good enough shape so that my daughter and my daughter’s children and their children can benefit from it.