An age old problem that exist in many discipline

[WanderingMonk]

so, I decided to do some reading this morning and found something quite interesting. well, my interest is more about the buddhist aspect, but it also has implication for the TMA and any other traditions.
============================

One of our main tasks as human beings is to seek and to discover what is real and true. We must use intelligence as our main tool and sound reason as the verifier. That is all we have at this point. However, as we go about deepening our understanding, we still carry one problem with us: this mind that reasons so intelligently is still basically confused. Therefore, every "insight" is saturated by confusion. I am sorry to say it so bluntly, but human understanding is confused. It is not unmistaken wisdom, and it is not authentic until complete enlightenment. Can we admit that we are not yet enlightened?

The awakened state of a Buddha is one of perceiving clearly, distinctly, and completely the nature of things and all that exists. It is a wisdom that knows things as they are without confusion, without distortion. This is why we ordinary human beings cannot avoid seeking support in the words and teachings of a buddha.

These days we find a variety of religions, belief systems, and schools of thought; I am not sure why this is, but I believe that it is an expression of people's individual karma and past inclinations. Most spiritual people regard the Buddha as a wise teacher and proponent of peace. Some place the Buddha on the same level as the founder of their own religion, some lower. It is natural to feel that "my philosophy, my religion, is the truest. The words our founder spoke are the most sublime, the clearest picture of reality." It is human nature to believe that what we have is the best. Often, because of such belief, people tend to regard everyone else's view or spiritual path as dead wrong and leading them astray. So, as we find ourselves in this diverse global society there is no point, when addressing the public, to begin by saying, "Our Buddha, and only our Buddha, is right and true!"

To be honest, the self-supporting trait of human nature is nothing new; it has always been like this. That is why the tradition of Buddhist studies has always placed emphasis on testing the validity of the Buddha's words and the statements of later masters by means of intelligent reasoning. The intellect uses logic to create a reliable support.

In recent centuries, there has been an ascendancy in philosophical views that emphasize material reality; these include modern science. Inventiveness, in terms of products and technologies, is glorified. Similarly, we see that new ways of thinking that distance themselves from the past have become popular and are applauded. Contemporary society seems to be fascinated with novelty. Anyone who can come up with something new that has never been seen before--a new perspective, a new way of thinking--automatically becomes the founding father of a new "religion." Isn't it true that school children are taught that Albert Einstein was a fabulous genius, the founder of a new way?

Today we see a heightened interest in the Buddha's teachings throughout the world; there is a lot of contact between people of various backgrounds and the traditional teachings of the Buddha. It is my impression that Westerners who are new to Buddhism often feel more comfortable with a teacher who is well versed in psychology or science--even one who has only a cursory understanding of what the Buddha taught-than with a well-educated Buddhist master. This is understandable considering their upbringing.

Someone who teaches Buddhism while downplaying the Buddha and what he taught is received with open arms and tends to become quite popular, respected and regarded as an authority. Also, for instances, someone who expediently says, "Bowing down is useless" receives immediate applause.. "There is no need to do ngondro, the preliminary practices. It's just a Tibetan cultural artifact"--louder applause. It is human nature to prefer ease and dislike hardship, and catering to this attitude will always be popular. Those who want to adapt their teaching to people's weaknesses and brand it "Buddhism" will likely become popular leaders of a new movement. New followers will exclaim, "Your style is so free and open--I like it."

Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche (excerpted from the Introduction to the book DZOGCHEN PRIMER, compiled and edited by Marcia Binder Schmidt, a collection of essays on the principles of Tibetan Buddhism).

[David Jamieson]

It is human nature to prefer ease and dislike hardship, and catering to this attitude will always be popular.

This is a dangerous supposition and it is not correct. There are many who know exactly what a hard path is and what discipline is and how it is served by a hard path.

People who do not understand this will likely fit the model of what the rinpoche is talking about, But I would tend to think that he is being very general and is slightly perturbed by the lack of traditionalism and kowtowing in general.

Kowtowing is not the only way to temper the ego. There are other paths through direct experience.

[David Jamieson]

...as an aside and as an analogy, would you rather study medical science with someone who is up to date on the latest techniques? or would you rather study with an auspicious figure from the 15th century?

Would you study from an old outmoded point of view? This rinpoche is on the verge or urging a cult of personality. The one thing the Buddha Shakyamuni despised. It is too bad to read this coming from a lama. Not what I expected and kind of angry and narrow minded in its view.

This person has some points and he has others that are skewed by his own emotion, likes and dislikes.

regards

[WanderingMonk]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
...as an aside and as an analogy, would you rather study medical science with someone who is up to date on the latest techniques? or would you rather study with an auspicious figure from the 15th century?


If I decided it is better to study with an auspcious figure from the 15th century, then it would suppose that the medical knowledge of the past was the purist and the wisest. If we supposed I study with the latest medical technique, then it would supposed the current approach is the most correct and effective.

Yet, the truth is something in between. despite the lastest advance in western medicine, it has re-considered some of its approach to treating disease. It has gain some new arsenal by investigating exotic plants used in traditional medicine. Cetain branches has also adopted holistic approach used in traditional medicine.

so, it would seem the new has something to offer the old. the old has something to offer to the new.



Would you study from an old outmoded point of view?


This raise the question how do we judge what has become outmoded? Has a "new approach" produce another "buddha"?

consider this



Also, for instances, someone who expediently says, "Bowing down is useless" receives immediate applause.. "There is no need to do ngondro, the preliminary practices. It's just a Tibetan cultural artifact"--louder applause.

I am not going to argue about bowing, we can disagree on its usefulness. It has its symbolism but it has also been abused. But, those who reject the "preliminary practices" reject the vajra vehicle. This is because the four preliminary practices are the foundation of the vajra system.

Using the language of MMA, traditional system has not produce a champion in the recent year, so it is difficult to accept the merit of the tradtiional training.

The traditional buddhism has produced many great teachers in the past centuries, so it demonstrated its usefulness. Yet, has the new "pov" produce similar "great teachers"? If it hasn't, how do we know it works? Can it stand the test of time? Of course, there's always the question how do you judge one is a great teacher. :)


This rinpoche is on the verge or urging a cult of personality.

I missed that. may be you want to point out the sentences which lead to this observation.

[David Jamieson]

This is why we ordinary human beings cannot avoid seeking support in the words and teachings of a buddha.

This is as much an addmission of defeat as anything.

I think he has lost sight of the fact that the buddha was an ordinary human being himself.

The rest if as you say, open for debate. I do not agree with the assessment he is making. He calls for a return to an old path That I personally see as no longer useful and even dillapidated in scope and delivery.

But, in all fairness that is only my opinion. :)

cheers

[KC Elbows]

I'm not so sure traditional approaches have produced a lot of buddhas in the modern world, by the same token. What they did in the past may be immaterial to a discussion of now.

In addition, how shall we define buddhas? Had Mother Theresa eased more suffering than some of the buddhas of old? Did she follow the path mentioned above?

[WanderingMonk]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
I'm not so sure traditional approaches have produced a lot of buddhas in the modern world, by the same token. What they did in the past may be immaterial to a discussion of now.

I believe it has. I just claim this is my opinion and avoid further discussion.



In addition, how shall we define buddhas? Had Mother Theresa eased more suffering than some of the buddhas of old? Did she follow the path mentioned above?

Mother Theresa did alleviate suffering. She practiced the "compassionate way". Her worldly deeds are undisputed.

Buddha ends suffering for himself/herself and teach others how they can also learn to cease the suffering. The difference is between alleviation and ceassion.

[David Jamieson]

A view from the news...


Examining Mother Theresa's morality more closely, we should consider the facts that she supported the brutal dictatorship of Duvalier in Haiti; she "accepted over a million dollars from Charles Keating, the Lincoln Savings and Loans swindler, even though it had been shown to her that the money was stolen" (Hitchens); she vigorously campaigned to prevent divorce from becoming legal in Ireland; she squirreled away millions of dollars of donations in bank accounts while the children she was supposedly attempting to save starved to death; she stated on many occasions that human suffering was intrinsically good; and perhaps most ****ing of all, she was a tireless birth-control opponent who used her power against the humanists of India struggling to end the vicious cycle of over-population, poverty, and misery.


Such acts in the name of God demean true religious and ethical ideals. Rational, moral Catholics do not hold with a sadistic God who promotes suffering in a twisted conception of "suffer the little children to come unto Him."


If you preach the evil of birth control and abortion to people who cannot afford to have children, and then, when they have the children they cannot support, give them a few crumbs in a Mission of Charity to make their lives more bearable, is this laudable? Mother Theresa did indeed help a small amount of poor people, but did so while helping to create the much larger cause of their suffering.


Mother Theresa's means was salvation, and the end was a life of suffering.

This is yet another example of why we should question everything. Including our own suppostion. Do not take things for face value regardless of who is saying it. That is my current creedo, and I'm thinking I'm gonna stick with that. :p

[KC Elbows]

Kung Lek is causing me to suffer.:D

[David Jamieson]

Actually, you are causing yourself to suffer.

Much like any other able bodied, able minded person who suffers is causing it themselves.

Be happy in your bomb shelter ******.
:D

[WanderingMonk]

even the holiest saint will have detractors. Just because there are detractors doesn't make the detractors' charges true. There certainly are people who use religion to achieve financial gains. so, these allegations need to be seriously considered.

Did Mother Therasa's organization issued a reply? Did these detractor explain how mother Therasa benefited from the millions of dollar she squireel away in a bank account? does she have relatives who were being pay on the side? was she living it up in secret? was the money reserved for other purposes? Appearance sometime can be misleading. Yes, you should question everything to gain a better understanding. to critically think through things to arrive at the objective truth. this would also require one to examine detractor's criticism with questions as well..

[David Jamieson]

The Catholic church is said to have more than 20 billion dollars usd in liquid assets.

How exactly is that doing the Lord Jesus Christ's work on earth if it is in liquid cash form?

Besides, the point wasn't about the money wm, it is talking about her double standard which is counter to common sense humanism based on faith whereby she is creating more poverty by pushing her religious belief.

But I do understand the creation of one thing to service another such as has been pointed out in the detraction above.

the cycle being > stop planned parenthood > let more impoverished children enter the world> be seen as a hero for feeding the kids who are now just one more aspect of an already burdgeoning poor society such as that of India.

It's like Police forces and Justice departments who allow criminal organizations to exist instead of doing something about it and making a hollow little bust every time they need a public perception boost.

utter nonsense.

Not that theresa diidn't help anyone, I'm sure that she has. But she was defeating the true goal by letting her religion get in the way of a real solution, and that solution was a humanist one.

God forbid a humanist should be correct eh?

as for the accusations, look em up, they are a matter of record.
She did indeed accept vast sums on behalf of her ministry, she did vocalize her support of the dictator Duvalier and she did vocally express to the negative on planned parenthood.

[WanderingMonk]

plan parenthood has a its place. but, plan parenthood also include aborption if I am not mistaken. To control the population problem in India, the scale of aboprtion will be rather intolerable. Consider what goes on in China in order to carry out its plan parenthood program of 1 child per family. The number of aborpted fetus numbered in the millions over all these years (a rather low ball number is being used). so, the choice is poverty vs death to millions of fetus. It is not an easy call either way. Dealing with poverty or having hands "stained" with bloods of millions. What do you think she should do? Either way, it is going to be bad.

I am not a fan of the catholic church, but I don't know how much of control a nun in an outpost in India has over what the Church do with its asset.

I am a bit lazy of late so I am not going to look up all the bad thing Mother Therasa has done. but, if I will make some defense for MT b/c I think she did enough good to warrant it.

vocalizing a support for a dictator.

I know two "great" leaders of the 20th century who vocalized support for a hideous dictator at one time. The two men are Churchill and F. Roosevelt. They vocalized their support for the Stalin who is considered to be the worst mass murderer of the 20th century. Should the two leaders be condemned b/c they vocalized their support? Most would say no because the context of the time. They were facing the Nazi and Imperial Japan. Stalin was needed as an ally to save the world.

so, the question would be what did MT gain by vocalizing her support for a dictator? Did she gain something for herself or did she do it in exchange for something? In an authoritarian regime, the power is concentrated in the hands of the few. Being friendly and on good terms with those n power sometime can bring benefits to the population under that regime. For example, WHO representatives spent over a decades speaking to bejing officials about the problem with iodine deficiency in chinese's diet. Nobody did anything even presented with the repacussion of this problem. The WHO representative finally got a meeting with Premiere Zhu Zhong Ji. After thirty minutes of presntatiion, Zhu promised something will be done. With a week, an executive order was issued requiring iodine to be added to all salt sold in China. This has greatly minimize mental retardation and development problems in chinese children.

do you think MT will have more influence over someone who she denounced or offer some words of support? so, just because she vocalized her support for some dictator does not automatically make her action wrong. the context of the vocalization needed to be considered. The motivation needed to be consider. The consequences needed to be considered.

accept large sum of tainted money for her ministry.

A buddhist temple received funding from a business man for a small "pagoda". It was later learned that the business had made his money illegally. The adminstrator at the temple had a meeting to decide what to do. The money had to be "return" somehow because the money was earned illegally. allowing a structure built with that money to remain will spirtually taint the temple ground. one adminstrator advocated to demolished the pagoda. The senior adminstrator determine that was a waste of resources. A compromise was made. They withdraw from the temple's fund the exact amount of money equal the business man's donation and donated to charity.

Did MT face a similar problem when she found out the money she got was tainted? I don't know, but since she is running a charity. technically, she wasn't keeping the money. so, she might thought it was okay to use the money on the poor.

KL, I don't know all the facts. but, I think the issues are complicated than a simple she vocalized support for dictators, she refuese to return tainted money donated to her and she oppose plan parenthood because of her religiious conviction which actually make the problem worse.