Well okay, sorry, I should have said, in traditional, lower-case o orthodox, “conservative” (or some of conservative), etc, Christianity. I don’t know what it’s like for everyone, nowadays, who calls themselves Christians, but that’s usually how it works from what I’ve seen and read. And that’s not to say personal devotional time, even lasting days (look at Jesus’ forty days in the wilderness), is never appropriate, just that isn’t a huge priority among most Christians, because the emphasis is usually more on communal than individual religious life.
I’ve noticed that this is the same approach many take with any religion they are trying on for size. It is almost always an attempt to appear cool, knowledgable, or acceptable, until they honestly begin to relate the teachings to their own lives … then, perhaps, they may find part of themselves in honest pursuit of the inspiration. Though sometimes it’s a quest for redemption for something they can’t forgive themselves for.
duplicate duplicate post post
It makes me extremely happy when intelligent people can discuss religion with honest questions and honest answers and not resort to name-calling and personal attacks.
That has nothing to do with retreats in particular, but I just wanted to say that.
Isn’t ‘buddhist retreat’ redundant? I’ve never heard of a buddhist offensive.
What Cran said! 
Isn’t ‘buddhist retreat’ redundant? I’ve never heard of a buddhist offensive.
I’ve heard the government in the Union of Myanmar described as a “militant Buddhist regime”; the article was about their persecution of Christians (among other groups), and the incident I remember is the forced reloction of some children of Christian parents to Buddhist boarding schools. I don’t know how officially Buddhist the gov’t is, though.
I’ve noticed that this is the same approach many take with any religion they are trying on for size. It is almost always an attempt to appear cool, knowledgable, or acceptable, until they honestly begin to relate the teachings to their own lives … then, perhaps, they may find part of themselves in honest pursuit of the inspiration. Though sometimes it’s a quest for redemption for something they can’t forgive themselves for.
Yeah, people will do that. I’ve seen that in everything from Catholicism to Neopaganism to whatever. Sometimes it turns out fine, and they really become honest followers of whatever religion it is… and then sometimes it just stays shallow forever. Or they quit. shrug It just frustrates me, though, people not being honest with themselves, but instead just following the same way everyone else is.
This kind of stuff goes on all the time. Your charitable donations to overseas missions often fund Christian organizations that set their converts to beat up and terrorize Buddhists (Thailand is rife with these sorts of goings on). There is no “innocent” side. In Korea, Buddhist monks regularly go on strike or perform acts of civil disobedince when they don’t like any public action that might interfere with their power base or land holdings.
It is easy for us to ask, “Is that Buddhism?” but remember that the Pope is one of the richest and most powerful men in the world. The Papal bank was caught red handed funding Argentina’s Falklands war against England. Examples of abuses of money and power and corruption can be found at every turn in any organized religion (remember Jerry Falwell?).
Anywhere you see religious bodies exerting secular power you know there is more than spirituality at work.
djm
Quakerism (for example) is generally not an organized religion (no clergy, no church hierarchy, no formal rituals, no creed, no grand church buildings, etc), but there are still plenty of corrupt Quakers. I immediately think of Richard Nixon, God rest his soul. My point is not to get political with that statement, but, rather, (I hope) to point out that corruptness is not necessarily a function of institutions but of individuals. It’s in our human nature to be corrupt, it seems. Not just in religion but in a lot of matters, unfortunately. There are corrupt CEOs everywhere, and the Pope and Jerry Falwell are kinds of CEOs.
Without sounding too irreligious here, the above quote reminds me a an experience in Walmart this week. I think that I was in the cat food department of the store when a loud voice on the intercom announced, “Associates, may I have your attention. We are now going into a zone defense.” The announcer said it twice with a sense of urgency in his voice. All that I could think of was basketball practice in high school when the coach would yell, “Wake up, Tipple, I said zone defense”. I have never heard of a buddhist offensive, but I don’t think that I want to imagine what a Walmart zone defense is.
I have never been to a Buddhist “retreat”, but I have been to a number of Sufi retreats over the years. I think that when you completely shift gears and do something completely different for a period of time, that can’t help but make a big change in your perception.
When I was in my twenties, I retreated to a small community near the Mexican border in the American southwest. I worked for a small mining exploration company, and for days at a stretch I would be completely by myself on the mining property in the desert mountains. I didn’t have electricity, running water, a telephone, or a radio. I certainly didn’t have a cell phone to use in case of an emergency. I remember how quiet it was. Coming back into the little town after being alone for days was always a jolt to my senses.
In Sri Lanka the endless civil war between Hindu Tamils in
the south and Buddhists in the rest of the country, was
a consequence of Buddhist chauvinism and discrimination
against Tamils. I stayed in Sri Lanka for a couple of
months and I occasionally heard Buddhists say,
emphatically: ‘This is a Buddhist country!’
I don’t know what precisely is motivating the military
elite in Burma, however there is no question that they
are devout Buddhists. Also I’ve been told by Burmese
in a position to know that they practice meditation.
And they are capable of horrible things.
However the
history of Buddhism is a good deal more pacific
than that of most other major religions.
I think the point is that nobody is safe, and that means
me. That one meditates, believes in peace, and so on,
is no guarantee that one isn’t acting like a pig.
It’s really helpful to remember that. I once pointed out to
a meditation teacher, who was saying Buddhist meditation
leads to peace with all, that some very nasty people in
Burma do Buddhist meditation of the same sort
he teaches (and I practice). I remember he got angry.
He is, you see, attached to his method. And there I think
one finds the bright line. It isn’t ultimately the love of
power and money, though obviously that is a form
of the problem, a particularly virulent one.
The root is attachment. The civil
war in Sri Lanka was motivated, not by people
who were after power and money, but by
people who had a fierce pride in Buddhism.
Some of the monastic scholars who have written some
of the greatest books published about Buddhism,
were driving forces behind the civil war because they were deeply attached to Buddhism.
Ego doesn’t see itself and it’s subtle, and it attaches
to this and that–to money, to power, to meditation,
to Buddhism, to Christianity, to God, to this or that
‘ism.’ … And then
we defend these things not seeing that we are
really defending ourselves.
This is very, very true. All religions stand for something bad, but they also all stand for something good. There’s a paradox in there somewhere, but I don’t think it’s on the surface.
I’ve noticed that Protestants talk about the times when they were persecuted by Roman Catholics and Roman Catholics talk about the times when they were repressed under Protestant regimes and pagans talk about being persecuted by Christians and Christians talk about being persecuted by pagans and Jews talk about being ostracized by Christians and Christians talk about being ostracized by Jews. This doesn’t just apply to religion, though, any human society seems to have trouble getting along with any other human society.
If you’re attached to a good doctrine, you’re capable of
bad things in its defense. There’s nothing the matter
with the doctrine.
The Buddha said his teaching was like a raft, patched together
out of reeds and rope, that one used to cross the stream
of suffering. It’s for getting used, not for getting hold of,
he said. When you get to the other side you don’t say:
‘This is a good raft. I will carry on my head for the
rest of my life.’ That’s ‘fondling’ the raft.
The problem is fondling the doctrine, not the doctrine.
Whistlers are ostracized by those dirty recorderists, and there’s no interpreting that. It’s just a fact and if you don’t agree, then you’re an evil person.
Hi, Jim, I’m reading through your posts and smiling . . . only because only a week ago I got imposed in an exile sounding similar to your retreat. I got the job of running the register in the outdoor garden of the home improvement store that I work at. It rained all day. I have a nice little booth to work in and I can take few steps out under the canopy, but mostly it was eight hours without a soul in sight. Oh my God, what the heck am I gonna do to keep from going crazy? Spent a lot of time watching my breath, humming whistle tunes, reciting Monty Python skits . . . but ended up having a memory of my grandmother come up(who has since deceased) and recalling all the details of arriving at her house, sitting around the table with tea or coffee and having my mom and her talk for hours. It was so surprising for it to come up in my head . . . but I was so happy to “revisit” her again that getting stuck out in the rain wasn’t as bad as I would have thought. I wouldn’t have had time to recall that memory if I had been inside that day.
Oh yes, that’s totally true, i was just bantering 
Not saying Buddhists are especialyl bad, or Christians are specialyl good… but peopel are especially abd and people are especially good, si all.
There have been a lot of thoughtfully presented, beautifully expressed views in this thread.
I find very interesting (in a good way) Jim’s view that excessive attachment to a doctrine is a cause of great evil. On one level, I agree. As a “conservative” Christian, I am appalled by what people have done, and continue to do, in the name of Jesus.
But I believe it was not and is not excessive devotion to a doctrine that causes this, because his doctrine itself excludes such behavior. When asked what was the greatest commandment, Jesus responded, “The greatest commandment is this: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.” But then he went on. “The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” He later said that all men would be able to recognize his true disciples by their selfless love. Regarding what it meant to be His follower, he said that “He who clings to his life will lose it, but he who looses his life will find it.”
Devotion to Christ’s doctrine, and to Christ himself, results in a life of selfless service. This is difficult for me. It is easy for me to accept Jesus’ forgiveness, savor His wisdom, and revel in the comfort of my spiritual family.
The trouble is, there are things I want, for me. It is easy to wrap selfishness up in a thin garb of piety. It isn’t only the powerful who do this. A comfortable place to live can be seen as an opportunity to practice hospitality. A new truck is reliable transportation to and from church. A high paying job is a way to make more money to help the poor. And so on. I can take comfort knowing that the things I want are wholesome things, and they truly do get put to noble ends now and then. I’m not hurting anyone and I do manage to help a few people.
But if I am really honest, what I want from those things is comfort, enjoyment, and money. This is something I’m working on, starting with the motive and letting that determine what I want, rather than starting with what I want then rationalizing a motive so I can feel good about it.
All of which is just to point out that, when I get selfish in my faith, it is not because I am excessively devoted to Christ’s doctrine. It is because I have lost sight of why I am here.
The “Christians” who go to funerals of gay people holding signs that say “God Hates Faggots;” Religious military crusades; Persecution of people of other religions; Conversion by coersion and manipulation; and so on: None of these things are really caused by an attachment to true Christian doctrine. They are caused by those who have turned away from Jesus’ teachings (intentionally or through misunderstanding), but continue to use his name to justify their own need for power, honor of men, riches, comfort, self-esteem, or whatever.
Tom
Perhaps I can express the thought in a different way (and Jim can jump in to say if he wants to disagree with my interpretation). I believe Jim is referring to attachment to the doctrine as a thing, a symbol unto itself, rather than the ideals and teachings expressed within the doctrine. An example might be something along the lines of, “We’re the greatest, most sincere pacifists in the world, and we’ll kill anyone to prove it.”
Well, that might be a bit too extreme, but I think what’s at the root of this stuff is tribalism - basic, primitive tribalism. Less sophisticated cultures are not as good at hiding it as us, but I think that this is really what it all amounts to. How can supposed Buddhist pacifists commit outrageous acts of violence and slaughter? Easy - us against them. “Us” is always better than “them,” and when “us” do something against “them” it’s justified because … well, it’s “them,” after all.
What makes us “us”? Anything you like: our street, our block, our neighbourhood, our skin colour, our religion, our language, our culture, our country, etc. We can say that people attach to an idea, a symbol, but what is it they are attaching? Their allegiance to a tribe. That justifies just about anything, whether it’s a cowardly act against the place of worship on the next block or enforcing our political and economic will on a third-world counrty on the other side of the globe with the most deadly and technologically advanced fighting force in our history.
Us against them, baby!
djm
I think you’re both saying just about the same thing- it’s human pride. I want this, so I’ll get it. Some people it’s more blunt- I want this material thing, so I’m gonna use religion to get it- sometimes it’s more subtle, like I’m gonna tout this religion to make myself part of this group in order to make it big and in doing so puff myself up (the reason we like tribalsim is because it makes me, singular, feel good). Those are both selfish acts of pride; but I’d say it’s not necessarily because of the doctrine you believe, but your own pride, for which the doctrine becomes a parasite.
Good posts.
Being devoted to a doctrine is one thing,
being attached to it another. Though obviously
the first can easily lead to the second.
One becomes a Buddhist by formally
‘going for refuge’ in the Buddha, the dharma (his teaching),
and the sangha (the community of practitioners,
especially monastics).
Taking refuge in the dharma means, not necessarily
that you believe all of it, but that you do believe
it contains a way of liberation. It is your refuge
from the storms of life. You try to live in terms
of this teaching.
Attachment is when you view it as ‘mine.’
This can be very subtle and hard to spot.
But it’s ego, it’s self. The doctrine becomes part of
one’s identity, it’s who I am, and it makes me
better than others who don’t share it. A symptom
is an angry feeling when people criticize it,
speak about it without understand it, and
so on. It feels like they are attacking me.
The stuff about tribalism is very good.
From a Buddhist perspective, the root of all
the trouble, though, is individual ego.
This is my group, my family, my whatever.
One is attached to these things.
So the egoless zen teacher I describe above,
who is devoted to the Buddha’s teaching
so much that he has devoted his life to
practicing it, would respond to my imaginary
attack ‘All this Buddhism and meditation you
teach is worthless rubbish!’ by looking at
me with interest and saying:
Is that so?
That’s what freedom is.
One of the chief props of ego, according to the Buddha,
is ‘ditthi,’ in Pali. Attachment to views. Including
Buddhism. Consider the fierce attachment most
of us have to our political views. Somebody
denouncing my political views feels a good deal
like somebody punching me in the stomach.
That’s Ditthi. Of course it makes it very hard
to reconsider one’s views! It’s like sawing off
a body part.
But devotion to this or that belief or doctrine is
not in itself problematic. You live in terms of it,
but, if you remain unattached, it’s not self,
it’s not mine, it’s not part of me. And you can
let it go, like yesterday’s clothes…