SuttaCentral
Venerable Dhammajiva MahaThero is organising this conference Feb 23—25, in Colonbo SL. It’s sold out but it looks like there will be live streaming.
The program looks interesting and anyone who doesn’t know about the Satipasala kids mindfulness training should check it out. Venerable Dhammajiva has it rolled out across Sri Lanka and there are groups forming across Australia currently.
There are so many so-called progressive Buddhist monks are appearing in Sri Lanka all over the place.
This appears to be an interfaith movement.
I have no problem with interfaith dialog.
My problem is these interfaith dialogs dilute the Buddhas teaching.
I can understand that it is worth to have an interfaith dialog in Abrahamic religions.
But I am not sure how it works with Buddhism
In this video Brother Chares Thomas is praising a monk who decided not to use the word “Theruwan Sarni” “may the triple gem (Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha) bless you” He said it is a sign of Metta. What we should remember is that three refuges are the conerstones of Buddhism.
I think it is inappropriate for a monk to deliver a Dhamma talk without paying homage to Buddha.
Even if someone pays homage to the Triple gem and thousand times, or even if they take precepts a thousand times if they do not practice and abide by the dhamma, they will receive scanty blessings from their artifice.
I agree your point.
It is something like before you give a speech you address the ordinance first.
It is a valuable tool to get set the mind of people before giving Dhamma.
True. The true speaker of the dhamma would use the speech itself. No need to hide behind these proclamations and allegiances; having said that I would probably use it myself. Some people won’t recognise it is the dhamma without it.
With metta
This is new age thinking.
This conference and the satipasala program isn’t about Buddhism. Buddhist don’t have the franchise rights to meditation and mindfulness. They do however have an awesome source!
The satipasala program is to teach mindfulness to kids of all backgrounds for the benefit of all beings including themselves.
Sometimes saying namo tassa x3 would alienate a good portion of an audience who then wouldn’t listen to the teachings and would not benefit. The first Dhamma talks I listened to didn’t start in the traditional way, but the Dhamma was there and that’s what got me hooked. If someone is in robes and talking about knowing (buddho) the truth of the way things are (Dhamma) to be one who has realised the end of suffering (Sangha) then they are truly sharing the blessing of the Noble Triple Gem.
I agree.
What Buddha taught was the right mindfulness.
This Sati Pasala is all about worldly achievements and it is not the intention of the Buddha.
This is very similar to the Mc Donad Mindfulness taught in many Western countries.
It is inappropriate for a prominent Buddhist monk to not to teach the complete mindfulness to anyone.
That is only my objection.
Whether the monk chooses to use this wording is up to him. The Buddha didn’t do it, and (usually) nor do I.
But to praise this as a sign of metta is interfaith done wrong. The point of interfaith is to respect and learn from each other’s approaches, not to relinquish one’s own tradition.
Where it steps over a line is when it is assumed that everyone will join in one’s own tradition. This has happened to me at a service in Canberra, where we were invited for an interfaith gathering on Commonwealth Day. The organizers were Christian, and they just went ahead and led prayers and hymns, making me feel quite uncomfortable. Don’t worry, I complained about it! For the record, this was unusual, and stuck out because interfaith events usually avoid such mistakes.
I am sure they will be very uncomfortable if you talk about Anatta or no creator God.
Not at all. I have spoken about these things, or especially the no-god thing, on multiple occasions at interfaith events. If someone comes out with “We’re all one because we believe in the One God”, they can expect to hear an “Ahem!” from the Buddhist table. It’s important that they understand that we do not share their belief. The point is simply that I don’t impose my beliefs or assume they share them.
I have sometimes gathered in a little “Dharmic religion corner” with the Hindus and Jains and plotted the overthrow of the theocentric notions of interfaith. Still working on it!
The very word “interfaith” is wrong, I believe, since no Dharmic religion defines itself or refers to itself as a “faith”. I have proposed “way” as an alternative.