@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:
igm, I was referring to historical information provided by Setanta of Buddhist sects commiting acts of violence. I could, I suppose, just say that those actors are not real Buddhists. Surely they were not acting in accordance with the teachings of the Buddha, just as Catholics were not acting in accordance with the teachings of Jesus during the Inquisition. I agree with you that the violent sects were not Buddhist in their violence and Catholics were not Christians in their Inquisition project.
But when you say that if I am embarrassed by Buddhists' actions I may be just "someone with an interest in [SOME] of the teachings of the Buddha", you seem to imply that I'm critical of some teachings. I trust that's not what you meant. My "embarrassment" is the right word, but it's about actions not teachings.
Surely, you said you were embarrassed by 'indifference' – see below.
I used your quote (see below) in my post and only this quote i.e. the post you replied to. This quote seems to be about 'sects' meditating instead of physically helping with the suffering of others and definetely not about violence.
It reads:
JLNobody wrote:
Setanta, I agree. As a "Buddhist"--at least as a follower of its philosophical principles--I am embarrassed by the historical indifference some sects have shown to the physical suffering of others, focusing ONLY on the psychic "dukkha" resulting from spiritual delusion.
This is not what you referred to in your reply. For this see the first of your quotes above i.e. "igm, I was referring to historical information provided by Setanta of Buddhist sects commiting acts ..."
I was referring to your embarrassment at ‘indifference’ i.e. a lack of action on the part of the agent?
My point is, are you sure it’s appropriate to be embarrassed by the actions or inactions of agents who act in contradiction to the Buddha’s teachings because they are not Buddhists, if one is a Buddhist? I'd say no. Or, if one is not a Buddhist is it the correct response i.e. embarrassment, if the actions or inactions of Buddhists are actions by definition in accord with the Buddha’s teachings? No because to be embarrassed because followers of the Buddha were following the teachings of the Buddha would mean that as long as that view was held one would not be a Buddhist.
My point is a logical one. It is designed to cover all apparent possibilities not to make a personal statement about the author of my rebuttal.
So my post still stands and is not meant personally but does defend the right for Buddhists to practice the Buddha’s teachings; I certainly wouldn’t be embarrassed if they did and if they are not Buddhist then as a Buddhist I still would not be embarrassed, why would I be?
To reiterate:
igm wrote:
Are you sure embarrassment is the correct way to respond?
These “sects” are either Buddhist or not. I define a Buddhist as someone who follows the Buddha’s teachings. If these sects are Buddhist then by definition they are following the Buddha’s teachings. As a Buddhist you wouldn’t be following the Buddha’s teaching if you are embarrassed at Buddhists following the Buddha’s teachings. If you’re not a Buddhist you can’t be ‘embarrassed’ by Buddhists practising Buddhism.
Conversely if these “sects” are not following the Buddha’s teachings they are by definition not Buddhist and your embarrassment as a Buddhist for their, “focusing ONLY on the psychic "dukkha" resulting from spiritual delusion.” would surely be unnecessary as they are not acting in a way that would warrant embarrassment because they are not Buddhist.
Surely you could only be embarrassed if you as a Buddhist found other Buddhists actions to be embarrassing. If this is the case I’m not sure that would make you a Buddhist but perhaps someone with an interest in some of the teachings of the Buddha. Then you wouldn’t really be a Buddhist, so you wouldn’t need to be embarrassed at the action of Buddhists.
