Sure, but not every teaching of dhamma, regardless of who it's from, can be characterized as "forcefully interfering in the affairs of sentient beings, against their will". It is that form of imposition that this topic is addressing.
Metta,
Paul.
Sure, but not every teaching of dhamma, regardless of who it's from, can be characterized as "forcefully interfering in the affairs of sentient beings, against their will". It is that form of imposition that this topic is addressing.
I have no in-depth expertise in Buddhism, but I have never encountered such forceful 'elitist interference' or any encouragement to do so in the Buddha's teachings. I always thought Buddhism (or, at least the early Buddhist teaching) encourages to teach whoever listens, but it does not encourage to make people listen and follow the teachings like some of the other religions appear to do.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 1:49 am
But what of Theravada Buddhism and what of the Buddha's teachings themselves? Is our religion guilty of the same hectoring and proselytization, or did the Buddha successfully tread a "middle way" between offering what he considered valuable, and forcing it upon others against their will?
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
I partially disagree with this quote. I will definitely try to influence my children to adopt my views (such influence usually happens in most families anyways). Next to myself it's the children who I might be able to influence with my views and it does not count as 'elitist interference' or proselytization, in my opinion. If I don't influence then they will be influenced by someone else or something else which may not always be a positive one.Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh
Sure, but "forcefully interfering in the affairs of sentient beings, against their will doesn't accurately characterize Mahayana Buddhism's Bodhisattva Vow. The first line in your signature is evidence of that. Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh is a Mahayana Buddhist and has taken and keeps the Bodhisattva Vow.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:21 am Greetings Seeker,
Sure, but not every teaching of dhamma, regardless of who it's from, can be characterized as "forcefully interfering in the affairs of sentient beings, against their will". It is that form of imposition that this topic is addressing.
Metta,
Paul.
Perhaps the good venerable has not discerned a conflict between his own self-styled vows of Engaged Buddhism, and the Bodhisattva Vows? Or maybe he adopts the "metaphorical" understanding of the Bodhisattva Vow, shared earlier by santa100...seeker242 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:29 am Sure, but "forcefully interfering in the affairs of sentient beings, against their will doesn't accurately characterize Mahayana Buddhism's Bodhisattva Vow. The first line in your signature is evidence of that. Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh is a Mahayana Buddhist and has taken and keeps the Bodhisattva Vow.
It just came across with a "sectarian bashing" kind of tone, which is why I commented on it.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:34 am Who knows, but there's no need to get too caught up in the illustration I gave...
I would say no, no Buddhist traditions do it. Individual people sure, but ignorant people don't always behave appropriately according to the tradition. But that's true of every tradition.the real question is whether Theravāda does it or not.
There are two points here. The first is what we would do. We are all, Buddhists or not, acting from a position of relative delusion, and I think an understanding of what the Buddha said about views entails our humility regarding what is best for others. I might have a very strong view that my advice or intervention is in the best interests of the person on the receiving end, but I should remain open to the possibility that I am wrong. For example, I have argued strongly with people who have wanted to commit suicide, but ultimately I remain open to the possibility that they were right. I just did the best I could from a position of imperfect knowledge. If the situation were ongoing and serious enough and there was a reasonable chance of success, I would persist with offering advice and intervening, being motivated by my view as to their interests, but knowing that I might be mistaken. (This raises the interesting question of which situations are worth intervening in. When asked, definitely. When unasked, it depends on the seriousness and irrevocability of the consequences, coupled with the possibility of success. I would intervene if I saw children in danger, but not waste time persuading smokers to give up their habit...)retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:05 am It's not simply about a willingness to help, but about what happens if someone does not want or see value in your so-called "help"?
What if, due to different world-views, philosophies, ideologies, preferences, life circumstances etc. that which you believe is "helpful", is not something that is actually considered helpful, desirable or beneficial to someone else who does not share your values?
What then? Do we respect their autonomy and leave them be, or do we refuse to take "no" for an answer?
What would the Buddha do?
Metta,
Paul.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.htmlif a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then the Tathagata doesn't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing. His knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing. This is what it means to be totally destroyed in the Doctrine & Discipline, when the Tathagata doesn't regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing, and one's knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing.
But there is this interesting passage:But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.htmlon that occasion, a large number of boys on the road between Sāvatthī & Jeta's Grove were catching fish. Then early in the morning the Blessed One adjusted his under robe and — carrying his bowl & robes — went into Sāvatthī for alms. He saw the large number of boys on the road between Sāvatthī & Jeta's Grove catching little fish. Seeing them, he went up to them and, on arrival, said to them, "Boys, do you fear pain? Do you dislike pain?"
"Yes, lord, we fear pain. We dislike pain."
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
If you fear pain,
if you dislike pain,
don't anywhere do an evil deed
in open or in secret.
If you're doing or will do
an evil deed,
you won't escape pain
catching up
as you run away.
Could you elaborate how those people with bodhisattva vow interfere in the affairs of all sentient beings ? Isn't making a vow does not necessarily in reality interfering in the affairs ?retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 1:49 am
I think here for starters about Mahayana Buddhism's "Bodhisattva Vow", whereby those who adopt this vow have effectively vowed to interfere in the affairs of all sentient beings, whether they assent to this interference or not, until all sentient beings have been liberated through Mahayana's understanding of enlightenment. Personally, I find such grandiose activity to be an evangelical, intrusive, presumptuous pomposity and I hereby politely request that anyone who was taken such a vow, please liberate me from the remit of it, as I would like to opt out of being the target of such controlling, authoritarian, elitist interference.
Metta,
Paul.
"The Bodhisattva vow is the vow taken by Mahayana Buddhists to liberate all sentient beings." (Wikipedia entry on Bodhisattva Vow, first line)
No, I'm not offended, but I remind you, as I said to members earlier, don't get caught up in the example itself... all I wanted to know is if Theravada avoids elitist interference in the affairs of others. The example of the bodhisattvas is merely intended to serve as a comparative frame of reference... it is not the topic itself, or else I would have put this topic in the "Connections to Other Paths" sub-forum.If I remembered correctly , you said you are not interested in Mahayana teachings . I hope this is not offending .
Ok , I understand the example .retrofuturist wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:04 am Greetings James,
"The Bodhisattva vow is the vow taken by Mahayana Buddhists to liberate all sentient beings." (Wikipedia entry on Bodhisattva Vow, first line)
If you fall within the realm of "sentient beings", then they are avowed to liberate you... if you don't see your spiritual autonomy as your own affair, then maybe you don't see this as interference?
I don't recall the Buddha trying to impose the Dhamma, the goal of liberation, or even his view of liberation upon others. Even when he encouraged his first disciples to spread the Dhamma, he said...
‘Go forth for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the welfare, the good and the happiness of gods and humans. Let no two of you go in the same direction. Teach the Dhamma which is beautiful in the beginning, beautiful in the middle and beautiful in the end. Explain both the letter and the spirit of the holy life, completely fulfilled and perfectly pure’ (Vin.I,20).
Nothing there about interfering with, or forcing the Dhamma upon those who are not interested in hearing it. In fact, the Vinaya explicitly talks about instances where the Dhamma should not be taught to another.
No, I'm not offended, but I remind you, as I said to members earlier, don't get caught up in the example itself... all I wanted to know is if Theravada avoids elitist interference in the affairs of others. The example of the bodhisattvas is merely intended to serve as a comparative frame of reference... it is not the topic itself, or else I would have put this topic in the "Connections to Other Paths" sub-forum.If I remembered correctly , you said you are not interested in Mahayana teachings . I hope this is not offending .
Metta,
Paul.
Kinti Sutta (MN 103) wrote: While you are training in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, some bhikkhu might commit an offence or a transgression.
Now, bhikkhus, you should not hurry to reprove him; rather, the person should be examined thus: ‘[...] I can make that person emerge from the unwholesome and establish him in the wholesome.’ If such occurs to you, bhikkhus, it is proper to speak.
[...]
Then it may occur to you, bhikkhus: ‘I shall be troubled and the other person will be hurt; for the other person is given to anger and resentment, and he is firmly attached to his view and he relinquishes with difficulty; and I cannot make that person emerge from the unwholesome and establish him in the wholesome.’ One should not underrate equanimity towards such a person.
Abhayarājakumāra Sutta (MN 58) wrote: In the case of words that the Tathāgata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.