Slavic Buddhism vs Western Buddhism

[lostitude]

In any case, it does not change the fact that many Russians and Ukrainians (to take the examples I know) hate the Blacks for being disgustingly black full stop.

And blacks quite likely think whites are disgusting. Many yellow Asians believe whites are disgusting. Traditional Indians/Hindus think whites are inferior ... and so on. It seems rather common.
How many blacks would marry a white person? Or a Chinese person?

You are completely missing the point and turning this into a different debate altogether.
The point is that Westerners are actively taught to be tolerant of all types of diversity which helps encourage lovingkindness and compassion towards everyone.
Saying that the Blacks had it coming and that they are no better than other racists is irrelevant.

It's not clear how this enforced tolerance of other races works out in reality -- just look how it works out in the US. Surely, it makes people more accepting of others on the surface, nominally. It makes for good self-presentation -- appearing tolerant, compassionate, accepting of all: that's awfully fashionable these days.
But beyond that, I don't think it's real or has any substance to it. Possibly, many people are that way because it's fashionable, because it's some kind of social norm; and not because they would, you know, actually care about the people of other colors, religions, etc.

Even if what you said was true, it would still be a fist step in the right direction. That's how things have always been, including the evolution of women's rights over time.
Yet I think you are wrong, and that the people who still are racist and intolerant belong to the adults generation, and that you would be hard pressed to find any Westerner under the age of 15 who would be racist or mysoginistic or homophobic, if of course they have been educated to be tolerant without religious or foreign cultural interference.

[Coëmgenu]

Most people I know (I am not a social person, and keep to myself, which explains my few social contacts) are in interracial relationships. I myself am in an interracial relationship. So is the couple who live above me.

That is one tangible way I can see things working deeper than on a surface level here.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that this was a political issue. Hate and intolerance are definitely ethical issues of prime interest for our daily practice. To pick up on the OP's argument, the risk with Slavic buddhism is that its members may have a much harder time getting rid of this hatred and intolerance, precisely because some of their manifestations are culturally still very-well established if not encouraged, unlike in the West.

Nonsense.

Many Westerners operate out of an inherent bad faith model of information processing, and this becomes especially evident in the way they are dealing with Slavic peple, or, more specifically, Russians.

Maybe saying "Westerners operate out of an inherent bad faith model of information processing [which] becomes evident in the way they are dealing with Slavic people" is pretty much the exact same thing as saying something like "Slavic people operate out of a racist model of social interactivity which becomes evident in the way they are dealing with racial minorities."

Maybe both of these things are silly to say.

[Coëmgenu]

In further relation to the OP, maybe saying that it seems like Westerners have a lot of mental cockroaches is like saying that it seems like Slavic people have a lot of mental cockroaches.

[Coëmgenu]

you would be hard pressed to find any Westerner under the age of 15 who would be racist or mysoginistic or homophobic,

I was a very racist 15 year old, and I grew up with liberal parents in a society that gets called "Progressivist" by people who don't like it (Canada).

[DooDoot]

The point is that Westerners are actively taught to be tolerant of all types of diversity which helps encourage lovingkindness and compassion towards everyone.

Westerners were/are (successfully) actively taught to be tolerant of all types of diversity so outside cultures could use democracy to take control of Western governments. In other examples, diversity was/is taught for economic reasons because some nations need immigration. It seems to have little to do with lovingkindness and compassion towards everyone. If lovingkindness and compassion existed towards everyone then the Western "democratic" governments would not be murdering millions of people since 9/11 in "regime change" overt & covert wars. The Eastern European nations mentioned on this thread have probably observed the above phenomena and are trying to avoid it. I think diversity results in a loss of sense of "community" thus allows governments to control the population better. I have been engaged in my first ever "political" action over the last 3 months to protect community assets & culture against "Big-Brother" government; I live in an extremely diverse community; which probably accounts for the difficulty in organising people to work together against the government. I have been amazed at how so difficult it is to get people to work together (due to "individualism").

[Justsit]

you would be hard pressed to find any Westerner under the age of 15 who would be racist or mysoginistic or homophobic,

I was a very racist 15 year old, and I grew up with liberal parents in a society that gets called "Progressivist" by people who don't like it (Canada).

Agree. "Any Westerner" covers a lot of ground. There are plenty of under 15 year olds with the attitudes you mention throughout the US.

[binocular]

The point is that Westerners are actively taught to be tolerant of all types of diversity which helps encourage lovingkindness and compassion towards everyone.

I do not believe it does.

In fact, a Buddhist argument can be made that a general humanist approach to teaching people compassion and tolerance, or "lovingkindess" for all, and such, is bound to fail or be incomplete, because it lacks the proper foundation.

Saying that the Blacks had it coming and that they are no better than other racists is irrelevant.

Nobody said that.

It's not clear how this enforced tolerance of other races works out in reality -- just look how it works out in the US. Surely, it makes people more accepting of others on the surface, nominally. It makes for good self-presentation -- appearing tolerant, compassionate, accepting of all: that's awfully fashionable these days.
But beyond that, I don't think it's real or has any substance to it. Possibly, many people are that way because it's fashionable, because it's some kind of social norm; and not because they would, you know, actually care about the people of other colors, religions, etc.

Even if what you said was true, it would still be a fist step in the right direction.

No.

That's how things have always been, including the evolution of women's rights over time.

Good example. "Women's rights" is a fancy theoretical term that many people do accept, but begrudgingly. In practice, these rights are routinely trampled on, and when a woman fights for them, she might win in court, but suffer other consequences, possibly worse than what she complained about to begin with.
Sure, for example, she can sue her employer if he sexually harrasses her, and win her case in court. But she can be sure that she will not likely find another job, ever.
"Women's rights" are a Pyrrhic victory.

The "Women's rights" movement did not change the nature of the relationship between men and women; only its external appearance.

Yet I think you are wrong, and that the people who still are racist and intolerant belong to the adults generation, and that you would be hard pressed to find any Westerner under the age of 15 who would be racist or mysoginistic or homophobic, if of course they have been educated to be tolerant without religious or foreign cultural interference.

I know people who are tolerant and compassionate like that, seeming so nice and accepting on the surface. Yet underneath that sweet-seeming surface, is a hard, cold, cruel person.

[binocular]

Most people I know (I am not a social person, and keep to myself, which explains my few social contacts) are in interracial relationships. I myself am in an interracial relationship. So is the couple who live above me.

That is one tangible way I can see things working deeper than on a surface level here.

While I live in a culture with very little racial diversity.

The only people of another race that I see are the Roma who sell pots door to door. Everyone else I interact is white.
In fact, the country here is so racially consistent that on our personal identification documents, there is no data about a person's race. There's gender (and on some documents, hair color, eye color), but no mention of skin color.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that this was a political issue. Hate and intolerance are definitely ethical issues of prime interest for our daily practice. To pick up on the OP's argument, the risk with Slavic buddhism is that its members may have a much harder time getting rid of this hatred and intolerance, precisely because some of their manifestations are culturally still very-well established if not encouraged, unlike in the West.

Many Westerners operate out of an inherent bad faith model of information processing, and this becomes especially evident in the way they are dealing with Slavic peple, or, more specifically, Russians.

Maybe saying "Westerners operate out of an inherent bad faith model of information processing [which] becomes evident in the way they are dealing with Slavic people" is pretty much the exact same thing as saying something like "Slavic people operate out of a racist model of social interactivity which becomes evident in the way they are dealing with racial minorities."

For one, note the underlined qualifier.

Mind you, I'm "dwelling in far-flung Balkan backwaters", I know what I'm talking about.

In further relation to the OP, maybe saying that it seems like Westerners have a lot of mental cockroaches is like saying that it seems like Slavic people have a lot of mental cockroaches.

I'm sure they do; the point is that the Slavic ones are different than the American ones, for example.
I'm saying that the American ones are not better than the Slavic ones. *gasp*

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that this was a political issue. Hate and intolerance are definitely ethical issues of prime interest for our daily practice. To pick up on the OP's argument, the risk with Slavic buddhism is that its members may have a much harder time getting rid of this hatred and intolerance, precisely because some of their manifestations are culturally still very-well established if not encouraged, unlike in the West.

I still say this is nonsense, and superficial and mean at that.

It's not clear how a humanist approach could successfully lead to overcoming hatred and intolerance.

It's tough to try to keep this conversation so shallow.

[lostitude]

Good example. "Women's rights" is a fancy theoretical term that many people do accept, but begrudgingly. In practice, these rights are routinely trampled on, and when a woman fights for them, she might win in court, but suffer other consequences, possibly worse than what she complained about to begin with.
Sure, for example, she can sue her employer if he sexually harrasses her, and win her case in court. But she can be sure that she will not likely find another job, ever.
"Women's rights" are a Pyrrhic victory.

The "Women's rights" movement did not change the nature of the relationship between men and women; only its external appearance.

That's a really short-sighted view of women's rights. You seem to be forgetting that less than 100 years ago, women in several so-called advanced nations had no right to vote. They were not even allowed to open a bank account without permission from their legal guardian. How do you think this all changed?
Today, at long last, Saudi women are allowed to drive. How do you think that came about?

I know people who are tolerant and compassionate like that, seeming so nice and accepting on the surface. Yet underneath that sweet-seeming surface, is a hard, cold, cruel person.

And how does that prove anything? Don't you think their cultural/religious backghound has a lot to do with that?

No child was naturally born a racist or intolerant person. They are taught to become so. I really don't see how you can so adamantly deny this obvious fact.

[Pseudobabble]

[1] And how does that prove anything? Don't you think their cultural/religious backghound has a lot to do with that?

[2] No child was naturally born a racist or intolerant person. They are taught to become so. I really don't see how you can so adamantly deny this obvious fact.

1: Doubt it. Cruelty and nastiness are built into people (based on how people have behaved in all places and times, and continue to behave all around us, in all cultures), and require training in order not to be expressed. Hence sila.

2: Definitely not the case. Simple googling will show you much more.

[Assaji]

Personal labels inevitably lead to quarrels.

There are no "Slavs", all of whom would have the same attitude.
There are no standard "Westerners".

There are no "racists", - just specific actions or statements concerning other people or races.

Personal labels immediately lead to misunderstandings, since they make you to see the stereotypes instead of human beings.

IMHO, it's far more useful to speak about certain actions or statements, often done by some people of some nationalities.

As Buddha taught, it's important to treat other people with friendliness. However, unkind actions or statements are not enough to label a person as somehow inherently bad and worth hating. Friendliness can't be obligatory, - it's a quality to be developed voluntarily, through proper practice.

[Pseudobabble]

Personal labels inevitably lead to quarrels.

There are no "Slavs", all of whom would have the same attitude.
There are no standard "Westerners".

There are no "racists", - just specific actions or statements concerning other people or races.

Personal labels immediately lead to misunderstandings, since they make you to see the stereotypes instead of human beings.

IMHO, it's far more useful to speak about certain actions or statements, often done by some people of some nationalities.

As Buddha taught, it's important to treat other people with friendliness. However, unkind actions or statements are not enough to label a person as somehow inherently bad and worth hating. Friendliness can't be obligatory, - it's a quality to be developed voluntarily, through proper practice.

[binocular]

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that this was a political issue. Hate and intolerance are definitely ethical issues of prime interest for our daily practice. To pick up on the OP's argument, the risk with Slavic buddhism is that its members may have a much harder time getting rid of this hatred and intolerance, precisely because some of their manifestations are culturally still very-well established if not encouraged, unlike in the West.

How many Slavic Buddhists do you know?

I only know (of) a handful. I would describe none of them as hateful or intolerant. However, a half of those Slavic Buddhists that I know (of) are Nanavirans.
If anything, it appears that a background in Slavic culture might make a person less inclined to be interested in Mahayana, Vajrayana, and esp. Engaged Buddhism.


Here's, for example, what a Buddhist of Slavic descent thinks about (socially) engaged Buddhism:



In short, he doesn't think that being a socially engaged Buddhist is conducive to making progress on the Buddhist path. And I agree. I think that trying to resolve issues of social injustice, feminism, rights of workers, racism, ecology, and such is not conducive to making progress on the Buddhist path; and that it is also not necessary.

[lostitude]

1: Doubt it. Cruelty and nastiness are built into people (based on how people have behaved in all places and times, and continue to behave all around us, in all cultures), and require training in order not to be expressed. Hence sila.

2: Definitely not the case. Simple googling will show you much more.

1/Racism and intolerance are not any type of nastiness. They are based on beliefs and concepts that justify the attitude. So no, they are not built into people.

2/The two studies mentioned in your article suggest that toddlers can inherently tell who is white from who is black, which is'nt that surprising really. In no way do they suggest that those children inherently harbor disgust or resentment, i.e. racism, towards other colors. Even the article you provided mentions the influence of environmental factors on the development of racial treatment.

Here is another, larger study, that disproves such analysis. https://psmag.com/social-justice/small- ... tly-racist

Personal labels inevitably lead to quarrels.

I fully agree, but then, the OP had it coming and was obviously looking for it.

[binocular]

Personal labels inevitably lead to quarrels.

I fully agree, but then, the OP had it coming and was obviously looking for it.

Are you sure that the OP posted the thread with the idea that "Personal labels inevitably lead to quarrels" in mind?

Talk about intolerance!