Who are the (modern) protestant Buddhists?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
binocular
Posts: 3831
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Who are the (modern) protestant Buddhists?

Post by binocular » Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:03 pm

aflatun wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:29 pm
I prefer to match your standard for the purpose of this conversation. Christians and Muslims have always tried to purify conduct and intention while hoping for a better lot in the next life, and outside of contemporary times, this was never looked down upon as a path.
A meaningful comparison between the Abrahamic religions and Buddhism simply isn't possible, beacuse in Abrahamic religions, one only has one chance to "get it right", or else suffer permanent consequences, while there is no such threat in Buddhism. As such there is room for personal verification in Buddhism, while for Abrahamic religions, it would be perverse to say that personally verifying that eternal damnation is true, is also a form of personal verification.

binocular
Posts: 3831
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Who are the (modern) protestant Buddhists?

Post by binocular » Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:05 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:31 pm
Indeed. My wife (who is an Anglican priest) informs me that one can undertake a structured and sincere prayer life, and see for oneself that one's relationship with God becomes closer and more meaningful. Not all that different from "Ehipassiko", really.
A relationship with God, who is said to be perfectly willing and able to torture you for all eternity with no chance of redemption. Close and meaningful relationship, yeah right.

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 3696
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Cremation Ground, Phrao District, Chiangmai

Re: Who are the (modern) protestant Buddhists?

Post by Dhammanando » Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:09 pm

binocular wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:05 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:31 pm
Indeed. My wife (who is an Anglican priest) informs me that one can undertake a structured and sincere prayer life, and see for oneself that one's relationship with God becomes closer and more meaningful. Not all that different from "Ehipassiko", really.
A relationship with God, who is said to be perfectly willing and able to torture you for all eternity with no chance of redemption. Close and meaningful relationship, yeah right.
Not if you're an Anglican. The English Parliament abolished hell in 1863.

:shock:

http://religiousstudiesblog.blogspot.co ... ished.html

Ñāṇamoli remarked on it in his Thinker's Notebook:

"Some time this century, I was told, the Houses of Parliament, as the dominant governing body of the Church of England, enacted that Anglicans need not believe in Hell. I have often wondered what happened in the Anglican Heaven after that. Have the heavenly palaces (or clouds), which had till then been conveniently warmed by central heating — they are so high up — from the eternal fires of Hell now put out by man, been growing gradually cold (like London in the early months of 1947 when there was a blizzard and no coal)? And so the Anglican Heaven must now be frozen quite stiff, and no one can get into or out of it. And all the bad people, like the good, have to be reborn on earth again as men —after all they must be reborn somewhere, and if there is no Hell or Heaven any more, where else ? And that will then obviously go on for ever and ever... Unless perhaps the British Parliament reestablishes belief in Hell."

binocular
Posts: 3831
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Who are the (modern) protestant Buddhists?

Post by binocular » Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:59 pm

Dhammanando wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:09 pm
Not if you're an Anglican. The English Parliament abolished hell in 1863.
And if the English Parliament tells everyone to jump off a bridge, then, by golly, that's what everyone has to do.
:woohoo:

User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 2948
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Who are the (modern) protestant Buddhists?

Post by Goofaholix » Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:39 pm

binocular wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:51 am
Do they try to make merit and hope for a better rebirth?
Then, yes, they are in effect trying to verify things for themselves.
Clearly we have a different understanding of what verifying for oneselves entails, the keyword in your sentence is hope, how does hope and verification correlate? If anything I'd have thought they were opposites.

If scientists just hoped for scientific discovery we'd still be living in caves.

The general pre-protestant practice is to put food in the monks bowls on a regular basis because that's what you parents trained you to do and try to be good because that's what the monks told you to do, the only thing one can verify is that when you do it you feel better. This is a good lifestyle if one makes an informed decision to practice this way, but not if ignorance is the basis.

Protestant Buddhism added to that that lay people could have a vital meditation practice, that they could read, understand, and debate the teachings themselves, they could be teachers themselves, enlightenment was possible for all,

If you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.
Last edited by Goofaholix on Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.” ― Ajahn Chah

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 2323
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Who are the (modern) protestant Buddhists?

Post by Sam Vara » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:08 pm

binocular wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:05 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:31 pm
Indeed. My wife (who is an Anglican priest) informs me that one can undertake a structured and sincere prayer life, and see for oneself that one's relationship with God becomes closer and more meaningful. Not all that different from "Ehipassiko", really.
A relationship with God, who is said to be perfectly willing and able to torture you for all eternity with no chance of redemption. Close and meaningful relationship, yeah right.
You are confusing claims about the nature and capabilities of God with claims about the possibility of verifying such claims. A category error on your part, it seems.

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 578
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Who are the (modern) protestant Buddhists?

Post by aflatun » Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:16 am

binocular wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:03 pm
aflatun wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:29 pm
I prefer to match your standard for the purpose of this conversation. Christians and Muslims have always tried to purify conduct and intention while hoping for a better lot in the next life, and outside of contemporary times, this was never looked down upon as a path.
A meaningful comparison between the Abrahamic religions and Buddhism simply isn't possible, beacuse in Abrahamic religions, one only has one chance to "get it right", or else suffer permanent consequences, while there is no such threat in Buddhism. As such there is room for personal verification in Buddhism, while for Abrahamic religions, it would be perverse to say that personally verifying that eternal damnation is true, is also a form of personal verification.
Sure it is, and its actually quite fascinating particularly with respect to verifying ultimate truth for oneself, but as you throttle all such attempts by derailing the conversation into the well worn grooves of your protests against eternal damnation, the comparison, and more importantly the conversation, can't get off the ground.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

binocular
Posts: 3831
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Who are the (modern) protestant Buddhists?

Post by binocular » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:15 am

aflatun wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:16 am
Sure it is, and its actually quite fascinating particularly with respect to verifying ultimate truth for oneself, but as you throttle all such attempts by derailing the conversation into the well worn grooves of your protests against eternal damnation, the comparison, and more importantly the conversation, can't get off the ground.
*sigh*
Eternal damnation is what throttles everything, except perhaps ignorance.

I don't protest against eternal damnation and never have, never said it was wrong. I do think that the threat of eternal damnation makes an end to any meaningful communication.

Talking about a religion that teaches eternal damnation, but ignoring those teachings, is to reckon without one's host.

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6353
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California

Re: Who are the (modern) protestant Buddhists?

Post by Mkoll » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:31 am

Nicolas wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:25 pm
DNS wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:45 pm
I like lists, so I'll take a shot at creating a list.

1. Monastics are an integral part of Buddhism.
2. Teachings should only be done by monastic members.
3. The Order of bhikkhunis cannot be revived by Dharmagupta or other Mahayana nuns, it is dead.
4. The current full ordinations of nuns going on are not valid.
5. Rebirth is literally real.
6. Devas are real.
7. The Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha.
8. The Commentaries are very important to Buddhism and should not be dismissed or taken lightly.
9. Sila and Dana are integral parts of Buddhism.
10. D.O. includes the 3 life model.

That's just what I came up with off the top of my head. If we wanted to do a poll, we might modify some of the above.

Just for me personally, I would reject numbers 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 so that makes me a 5 right in the middle between traditionalist and modern.
I would associate acceptance of points 5, 6, 9 and 10 with "Modern Buddhism", not their rejection. I would call those rejecting kamma, rebirth, devas etc. "secular Buddhists" or "secular pseudo-Buddhists", not "modern Buddhists".
I like the pithy "YOLO Buddhists" (not my invention) for the secular types.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: form and 74 guests