A snake is a snake.
Organisational work, teaching, Sunday school syllabus, charitable work, outreach, sharing of resources, artwork, etc.
I think they are true, good Buddhists.
It's just that humanist sensibilites have no place in Buddhism, or in any other religion and spirituality, for that matter.
When someone with such sensibilities approaches religious/spiritual people, a disaster is inevitable.
And wrong grasping is wrong grasping.
Snakes are just part of nature, and if you go looking for them the benefit or harm is entirely down to how they are dealt with.
A snake is a snake. Being proud of being compared to a snake ... well, that's natural.
Hence, humanist sensibilites have no place in Buddhism, or in any other religion and spirituality, for that matter.
MN 22 (the Alagaddupama Sutta) doesn't compare anyone to a snake, or mention pride, so I don't see your point here.
As I don't see the point, I don't know whether it entails the view that humanist sensibilities have no place in Buddhism. There are plenty of perceptive modern humanist interpretations of Buddhism, so as a stand-alone point it is not particularly compelling.
And don't try to make this about me.mikenz66 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:12 pmAre they true Buddhists? Maybe you're paying attention to the wrong people...
[Notwithstanding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman, and possible misinterpretation of intent...]
The OP is asking how come Buddhism is not growing. The posters here have offered various reasons. I have offered some too.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 75 guests