I have converted two of my friends to Theravada Buddhism and I’ve developed this tendency to avoid certain topics in Buddhism like the 32 marks to avoid a fear I have of turning them away from Buddhism. For instance today I was reading them the beginning part of the Mahāpadānasutta. I used the logic I’ve heard given for the Buddha’s of antiquity not literally living in India eons ago. I chose to stop before the 32 marks of a great man because I felt like that would require an explanation that would seem too far-fetched to them. They’re fine with the devas, rebirth, jhanas, psychic ablities, 31 planes, and the other more lightly supernatural things. But even I struggled to accept 32 marks and a handful of other things in the past so I know how weird they sound at first.
Welcome to the D&D forum! We hope you enjoy the various resources, FAQs, and previous threads. We encourage you to use the search function for topics and keywords you are interested in.
We also ask you to please take a moment now to familiarize yourself with the forum guidelines: Forum Guidelines. May some of these resources be of assistance along the path.
If you have any questions or need further clarification regarding anything, feel free to contact the moderators by including @moderators in your post or a PM.
If you are asking about the 32 marks, then there have been several other conversation
If you are asking about converting people to Buddhism. It’s not really a thing we do. The Buddha only taught people when they were ready and willing. He taught them at the level they were ready for.
Yeah sorry if it wasn’t very clear it kind of late when I posted this. I have these two friends I’ve converted to Buddhism. Though I often avoid topics that I fear will turn them away. I wonder if me presenting the Dhamma while avoiding certain aspects of it is unskillful? Or if I should just present it as it is?
Yeah sorry it was kind of late when I posted this. I have these two friends I’ve converted to Buddhism. Though I often avoid topics that I fear will turn them away. I wonder if me presenting the Dhamma while avoiding certain aspects of it is unskillful? Or if I should just present it as it is?
I mean, it sounds like there’s a lot to unpack here. Your reluctance to engage with the topic might show your own uncertainty towards the subject. Do you believe 32 marks are a genuine, historical teaching? Are they mythological? How do you understand it? Why are you reluctant to share it?
Furthermore, if something you believe in so much that you want to convert others to it, how do you reconcile it having a topic that you’re reluctant to disclose? If a religion has elements you’re unsure about, why are you interested in proselytizing so soon?
I would defer to venerables to give you answers, but I can offer you some questions for you to come to some sort of answers yourself.
The anxiety you feel comes from trying to proselytize. Many traditions do not do this or warn against doing so. You’re now worried about giving up this “success” you feel from proselytizing. Perhaps it would be a good idea to analyze why you feel compelled to proselytize? What is the motivation behind doing so and is it a skillful one?
The Buddha in several places encouraged us to share the Dhamma with people that we care about.
The reluctance to share parts of the Buddha’s teaching is a central feature of the development of Buddhist Modernism by traditional Buddhists. You are not the first person to run into this situation.
I think it can be helpful to turn the issue on its head. What right do you have to hide teachings that might assist someone in their liberation. Are you like the Buddha himself who can know what people are ready to hear? What if you keep something from someone and not only would they have welcomed it, but it could have helped them further on their path?
At least those are the things I ask myself when I feel the urge to hold back.
All that said… it might be helpful to not feel as responsible for others as we tend to. Even if we do aid in someone’s conversion to Stream Entry, it’s still because of their merit and the power of the Dhamma. It’s not really about us.
Once someone is on board with all the things you listed, there is really no need for us to try to shield people from things (if there ever was in the first place).
I don’t really think that the 32 marks are a critical part of my Buddhist practice.
For me I read them and just move on. As I understand it, they were part of other traditions and filtered into Buddhism.
We know from several suttas that the Buddha looked like every other monk. So either all the monks at the Buddha time had the 32 marks or it was something that was projected onto the Buddha.
Maybe when you are discussing the 32 marks then you can reference suttas such as MN140 where he Buddha has a chance encounter with a monk who does not recognize him
Originally I had a EBT Buddhist type take on the 32 marks as being a later addition to maybe attempt to make the Buddha or the Dhamma in general more appealing to a Brahmanical audience. Though I’ve been shifting to a maybe more traditional interpretation of the Suttas. For instance I’ve heard this been said that the 32 marks could only be seen by people with greater perception, and I’ve largely adopted this view. I’ve had similar issues with Mount Meru and Vajirapani(the head splitting thing in DN 3). I’m reluctant to share these things precisely because I know they had me questioning things in the past. I moved pass these issues I had because of how compelling the Dhamma is. I believe in the devas, rebirth, jhanas, psychic ablities, 31 planes, etc. It’s just some small things that have bothered me in the grand scheme of things. I proselytized for many reasons, I saw it as beneficial to them, merit making for me, and because I saw my Christian friend trying to covert them.
I know my Tradition Theravada warns against it. But I see the great potential Buddhism has at gaining a substantial following here in the west. There are skillful reasons to why I proselytized, but I won’t lie I saw my Christian friend make an attempt to convert them and I decided that I needed to step up.
Your very right Snowbird. I have attempted to ease into things but I’ll be more brave to share the things that worried me. I’ll ask myself the same questions as you have going forward. Thank you.
Thank you Venerable. I’ve heard this reasoning before and I certainly think it holds merit. But what do you think of the position I’ve heard given by others that the 32 marks were a feature only perceivable to some who had developed higher perception?
You may adopt idea of “higher perception”, or just - if you trust Suttas, to believe that some other explanations are possible. Definitely for common man, Buddha, while looking quite handsomely, looked like normal man😀
I believe that the Buddha was able to appear to certain Brahmins this way. Anyway these are just subjective descriptions and not a picture, so it is difficult to say how it really looked like, because in my imagination, taking it literally, it would looked rather bizarre, more frightening than creating respect.
Anyway it is important to understand that we don’t understand many things, so dismissing something on the ground that it does not fit into our ideas how things are could be a great mistake.
I think that knigarian’s explanation seems reasonable. The Buddha and other monastics did change their appearance in the eyes of some people in other situations.
