SuttaCentral
Assuming that all Buddhist would agree that they are bickering about phenomena…why do they continue to have those negative feelings about their fellow Buddhist? Maybe too big of a questions, but to rephrase it slightly, "Why can’t we all just get along? What would Buddha say if he saw how his words are used as weapons?
Isn’t a discussion about being right, or which tradition is more better counter-intuitive to the principles of Buddhism?
Oh, okay, finally I get it!
For sure, it can be, and often is.
But we have to be careful not to dismiss the reality of people’s experience. If someone says, “My guru is better than your guru”, well, whatever dude. But if someone says, “My guru is better than your guru. And he says that gay people deserve to get AIDS because of the bad karma in a past life”*, then this is seriously harmful and must be countered. Not with anger or sectarian silliness, but with reason and kindness based on the Dhamma.
In brief: being right doesn’t matter—except when it does.
NOTE: * Actual view taught by actual “Buddhists”!
Ahhh, good, mission accomplished.[quote=“sujato, post:17, topic:3720”]
And he says that gay people deserve to get AIDS because of the bad karma in a past life"*,
[/quote]
But I have a hard time believing anyone would go for that kind of cheesy judgmentalism. I mean who could propose to know that with a straight face. Sounds too much like fundamental Christianity. In my naivete I guess I was hoping for a higher bar in Buddhism. sigh…
You’d hope so, wouldn’t you? But you know, Buddhists are just people. We have the right to be silly and judgmental!
Well for me, Asians, westerners,male,female neither female nor male ,Americans, Europeans, Sri Lankans, British, Germans,beings with good kamma beings with bad kamma or whatever it is are just living beings trapped in this mass of suffering who are in need of compassion and solace from the Buddha-dhamma!
Hi Bhante,
As usual, you bring up some very deep issues.
This whole area of gurus, and traditions based on gurus, is one of tremendous difficulty and contradiction. On one hand, Dhamma practice should be judgeable by it’s results. On the other, it’s not so easy to actually verify the results, as we see hinted about in discussions such as the following:
So if we follow the ideas of Ajahn Maha Bua, or Ajahn Chah, or Mahasi Sayadaw, or Bhikkhu Nanananda, or students of those teachers, is our practice more likely to be successful? Or perhaps we should try some Vajrayana practices - those are said to be very quick…
Ultimately, short of taking our own practice all the way to stream entry, we have no conclusive way of assessing the efficacy of how people are practising, which is where I agree with Ajahn Amaro that one should not be too quick to dismiss certain aspects as “baggage” without an adequate exploration.
I meant to say the Buddhist ideal in relation to marriage is monogamy. There are many teachings in the suttas about conduct in marriage and I have never read any teachings so far attributed to the Buddha where he advises a man or a woman had to conduct themselves in a situation where there are multiple wives or husbands. For example, there are no teachings about how a single man or single woman should sexually accommodate/satisfy his/her multiple spouses. To quote:
Householders, if both husband and wife wish to see one another not only in this present life but also in future lives… AN 4.55
A man, O brahmin, is a woman’s aim…her desire is to be without a co-wife…her ideal is domination. AN 6.52
Monks, these five are the confidences of the woman. What five? She is confident of form, of wealth, of relations, of sons and of virtues. Monks, the woman confident of these five, lives in the household subduing (controlling) her husband. SN 37.27
In five ways, young householder, should a wife as the West be ministered to by a husband:
(i) by being courteous to her,
(ii) by not despising her,
(iii) by being faithful to her,
(iv) by handing over authority to her,
(v) by providing her with adornments.
The wife thus ministered to as the West by her husband shows her compassion to her husband in five ways:
(i) she performs her duties well,
(ii) she is hospitable to relations and attendants
(iii) she is faithful,
(iv) she protects what he brings,
(v) she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties.
DN 31
The word ‘Brahmin’, here, does not ever refer to ‘caste’. Please refer to Dhp 383, for example.
As for the caste system, AN 8.19 states:
(4) Just as the mighty rivers on reaching the great ocean lose their former names and designations and are just reckoned as the great ocean; even so, when members of the four castes—nobles, brahmins, commoners and menials—go forth from home into the homeless life in this Dhamma and Discipline proclaimed by the Tathāgata, they lose their former names and lineage and are reckoned only as ascetics following the Son of the Sakyans. This is the fourth wonderful and marvellous quality in this Dhamma and Discipline…
I would not bother if I was you because I clearly refuted the two points you took up.
In my opinion, your post did not reinforce anything apart from reinforce the assertions made by Funie Hsu, namely:
But an important element of the appropriation occurs through the assumed occupation of white authority status, often legitimized through the intellectual study of Buddhism.
Kind regards 
I still don’t agree. I think any of the passages you provide could be read as working in polygamous or polyandrous relationships. But I can understand people may not agree with me. We are very attached to the idea of monogamous relationships in Western thought…
This is a woman’s (supposed) ideal, not the Buddha’s.
We still can’t escape the fact the Buddha used the language of caste.
What I didn’t do, but should have, was read on from where you quote Gombrich re: castes
This last misunderstanding is of great importance for what has
perhaps been the most insistent theme of this book. Religious individualism
– which we have tended to dub ‘Protestantism’ – does to some
extent imply religious egalitarianism. Certainly for the Christian Protestants
it carried that implication. It carried it for the early Buddhists
too, in that they believed all human beings to share the capacity for
spiritual progress. But that did not lead them (as it did the more extreme
Christian Protestants) to deny all social status: they accepted a fundamental
divide between those who had left the world and those who
remained in it, and the social distinctions prevalent among the latter.
They thus accepted also, as I have shown, a distinction between a
soteriology and a communal religion appropriate to those who
remained in society.
So he meant that the caste separation in early Buddhism was between the monastics, who’s goal was liberation, and the lay practitioners, who’s aim was support, good rebirth, happy life… etc…
Of course you don’t have to agree with that, but it’s an interesting point that’s also reflected in the Protestant movement (dissolving distinctions of priests and laity).
We’re just having a discussion…no need to be nasty. And we are both (all) allowed to express our opinions
Clearly this cannot be imputed upon AN 4.55, which is about two ‘soul mates’. All of the teachings I have read about wholesome conduct in marriage are about two people living together with higher virtues (rather than merely for sexual gratification & reproduction/breeding of heirs). I think it is very clear by the sutta teachings on marriage that the Buddha viewed marriage as relationship where higher virtue was to be cultivated.
For me, the impression here is a Western enthusiasm or sexual liberalist view towards polygamous or polyandrous relationships. I think to support your arguments, you would need to quote some teachings from the Pali suttas about polygamous or polyandrous relationships.
I disagree. For me, it is an expression of the Buddha’s great compassion towards women, in he was informing men that a woman’s ideal is to have one husband and thus men should try to have one wife and live with the wife as a soul mate (rather than as for mere sexual gratification or breeding purposes).
Actually, the Buddha redefined or debunked the word ‘Brahman’, thus stating the caste of Brahmans were not really ‘Brahmans’ (namely, ‘those that turn away from evil’). The Buddha replaced Brahman priests with the Arahants as the supreme person.
I wasn’t being “nasty”. Instead, I was being selfish to avoid having to reply more. 
Then, knowing that the venerable Raṭṭhapāla had consented, his father went back to his own house where he had gold coins and bullion made into a large heap and covered it with mats. Then he told the venerable Raṭṭhapāla’s former wives: “Come, daughters-in-law, adorn yourselves with ornaments in the way Raṭṭhapāla found you most dear and loveable.”
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn82/40
My posts are about the Buddhist marriage ideal & about wholesome conduct. The ridiculing of polygamy & the ridiculing of the wives as ‘bimbos’ found in MN 82 is not relevant.
The Buddha regarded women as capable of arahantship thus MN 82 does not reflect the ‘Buddhist ideal’ about marriage or women.
The Buddhist ideal about marriage is found in AN 4.55.
Well, yes the wives in MN 82 are stereotyped as ‘bimbos’, but there are several of them, as there are in a number of other suttas, which can be easily located by searching SC for “wives”…
I doubt this is relevant as only problems (dukkha) will probably be found in these suttas rather than wholesome Buddhist ideals.
As I suggested, it is possibly the tendency of Western Buddhists to celebrate sexual liberalism that leads to this celebration of polygamy. In other words, more Western hubris upon Buddhism.
Why would you write things like that? Does it really make you more happy… ?
My apologies for being off topic.
My statement was made with honesty. The salient points I made in my post are straightforward, very basic & thus difficult to refute, namely, Protestant Christianity does not represent the Gospels and Genuine Buddhism does have a “scientific nature”, which is why every morning & evening, Buddhists chant the Dhamma is “sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi”.
Cara appeared to solely rely on the information from a sole Western scholar, namely, Richard Gombrich, whose views appear obvious contrary to Pali Buddhism thus are easily countered. That Buddhism was revived in Ceylon due to Christian pressures does not necessarily make this ‘Westernized Buddhism’ since the reviving of Sinhalese Buddhism was based on the Pali suttas.
This topic is about Western hubris and, for me, suggesting I regard Richard Gombrich as an authority is more of this Western hubris & exemplifies the issue of this topic.
Kind regards
@Deeele, I think this discussion has reached it’s natural conclusion.
Let’s remember that as Buddhists we are focused on cultivating right speech, which is not just ‘correct’ but also timely, kind and appropriate to the situation.
Once again, my intention was to support the claim that present day Buddhism is Asia has been influenced by the West (not necessarily ‘Western Buddhism’) over the last 100+ years and the information from Richard Gombrich was the first example that came to mind - not necessarily my idea of the defining authority.
Other authors commenting on this I am sure can be found - on an initial quick inspection Dr. Chatsumarn Kabilsingh mentions the influence of the West on King Mongkut briefly in her book “Thai Women in Buddhism” but I’m sure even better examples can be found by those more widely read, and with more time than I.
You don’t have to agree with this. But please disagree while affording your fellow posters respect and the entitlement to their own opinions.
Is Funie Hsu unaware that Japanese or Chinese Buddhism is also a cultural appropriation, and exhibits “supremacist” attitudes? Didn’t Mahayanists used to refer to Theravada as “Hinayana,” and look down on it? To take the reasoning of “We’ve Been Here All Along” to its conclusion, only Nepalese and Indians should have the right to call themselves Buddhist. They’ve been here all along, too.
Identity politics strikes me as bizarre. People adopting ideas from neighbors has been a constant for as long as there have been people (and there’s evidence that other species do it too). It’s how understanding and efficiency improve. I’m not a big fan of William of Normandy, but imagine how impoverished English would be without his invasion of England and the subsequent importation of non-Germanic words.
Thank you for that. To me it is also antithetical to what I know, and appreciate, about Buddhism. Doesn’t rebirth create a level playing field for all of us? [a rhetorical question]
Hi Andy, Rosie,
Mahayana emerged in the Indian subcontinent, so I’m not sure why this is relevant.
I don’t see the parallel. Temples in China have displays celebrating the translation of Indian texts into Chinese and apparently welcomed, and revere, Indian teachers such as Bodhidhamma for transmitting the Dharma to them from India. [Of course the same is true of many Western Buddhists.]
There is a difference between borrowing and developing ideas and appropriating without acknowledgement, or in an insulting way. This is an important issue today for indigenous people in many countries (such as my own), and luckily things have improved immensely over the past few decades.
That sounds like a great argument to use against people such as Bhante @sujato speaking out about Bhikkhuni ordination. Don’t worry about it in this life…
Although I think Funie Hsu raises and touches on several very important issues about the potential for bigotry, chauvinism and arrogant presumption in religious discourse and practice, I think the positioning of these issues within the currently popular framework of “cultural appropriation” might not be the best approach. That’s because inherent in that framework are some ideas about ownership that are dubious, especially from a Buddhist point of view. Just some thoughts along these lines in response to passages from Hsu’s article:
To be clear, Buddhism belongs to all sentient beings. Even so, Asians and Asian American Buddhists have a rightful, distinct historical claim to Buddhism.
It appears to me that this statement is potentially inconsistent. If something truly belongs to all sentient beings, then no subset of those sentient beings has any special claim to it.
When it is said that Buddhism has been practiced for over 2,500 years, it is important to consider who has been persistently maintaining the practice for millennia: Asians, and more recently, Asian-Americans. It is because of our physical, emotional, and spiritual labor, our diligent cultivation of the practice through time and through histories of oppression, that Buddhism has persisted to the current time period and can be shared with non-Asian practitioners. This is historical fact.
All Buddhists of the present should be grateful to all the the Buddhists of the past whose devotion and laborious efforts have brought the dhamma, discipline and practice traditions down to us. But this applies equally to, for example, both a contemporary American Buddhist derived from some European ancestry and a contemporary Japanese or Japanese-American Buddhist of Japanese ancestry. After all, neither one of those people built all those stupas, temples and monasteries, translated and preserved all those texts, gave all those dhamma talks, or performed 2.5 millennia’s worth of dana.
Everyone can benefit from reflecting on cultural appropriation as a way to deepen our Buddhist practice. We can do this by using the five precepts as a guide. One teacher I study with stresses that the precepts are not merely about refraining from certain actions (no killing, no stealing, and so on); equally as important, they are about proactive efforts we can take to foster our spiritual development. The precept directing no stealing, for example, should be understood as both not taking what is not yours or what is not freely given and as actively practicing dana, or generosity. We can apply this approach to the issue of cultural appropriation.
Yes, but unless one has, for example, stolen a book about Buddhist history, teachings or practice, there is no sense in which simply adopting Buddhist practices or discussing or holding forth on Buddhist ideas, involves illegitimately taking or appropriating something that must be given by others. If the dhamma and discipline are not owned by any particular people or culture, then they can not be taken from that people or culture. On the other hand, it might make sense to say that certain kinds of concrete symbols, institutions and artifacts, which might have been fashioned by human beings in the course of developing a practice tradition around the dhamma, might be something to which the descendants of those people can lay claim.
In order to alleviate the suffering caused by cultural appropriation, we can refrain from asserting ownership of a free teaching that belongs to all.
I agree completely. Nobody should regard themselves, either individually or as part of a collective, as the owners of the Buddha’s teachings. No person, group, nation, ethic group or culture owns the teachings.
We can refrain from asserting false authority and superiority over those who have diligently maintained the practice to share freely with others.
Certainly. Everybody should refrain generally from asserting superiority over others, and refrain from asserting authority over any matters about which they are not, in fact, an authority. However, if a person has spent many years both studying the Buddhist tradition, and possibly also combining that study with the actual practice of that tradition, then their authority is not a false one, but is well earned.
The more important issue is whether there are other people who are equally qualified to speak with authority on some aspect of Buddhism, but whose voices have been suppressed, excluded or ignored because of cultural bigotry or chauvinism. This is a real issue in the United States, where much Buddhist intellectual discourse has been dominated by people in particular practice traditions, and with particular ethnic and class backgrounds, and efforts should be made to diversify the discourse to bring in more voices.
For white practitioners in particular, you can also mindfully investigate the emotions that arise when issues of cultural appropriation are brought to your attention. Robin DiAngelo writes about the concept of “white fragility,” a set of emotions—including anger, defensiveness, guilt, and more—that often accompany the thoughts of white people when they are forced to confront the reality of white supremacy. This concept can be helpful for white Buddhists in thinking about the false self and possible attachments to protecting the ego. Deep contemplation on this can help shatter the fragility of the false self and the delusion of racial colorblindness.
I agree that this is a good thing for “white” practitioners to investigate and think about. I have thought about it a great deal since I read Funie Hsu’s article. However, Buddhists of all kinds might also want to think about the possibility that, due to their own anger over perceived encroachments into a cultural territory over which they consider themselves duly authorized custodians, they might attempt to suppress or discourage perfectly legitimate alternative forms of practice or discourse by shaming or humiliating the practitioners into silence.