Comments on ““Fit””

You said,
“In Western religion, seeking a spiritual home is often thought of in terms of truth.”

Not trying to be too picky, but I think most people seeking a a spiritual home in the West do it for community, convenience, family support or other much more mundane reasons than “truth”. Thus in that sense, they are also pragmatic.

But you are right that most theologian types look at “true doctrine”.

You said,
“I believe that all Buddhist sects are valid.”

How would you determine “validity”? Without some measure, we could say this of all Christianities or Hinduisms.” Buddhist traditions (I am thinking of many Shin) vary widely enough so as to make this claim seem too broad. What do you think?

But as you said, this post is meant for Buddhist, so perhaps these are not points to bring up any further.

I agree with the import of much of what you right. But I am still allergic to any simple categorical statement that “Every Form of Buddhism is useful for someone. [But] probably ever of Christianity is only valid in a weak sense”.
Without a measure, even the truth of such a statement is dubious.
I think if we could measure things, we would find that some Christians use their faith to do remarkable useful work while many Buddhists do almost no useful work. So I could not see how one could simple categorize inner work given the subjective use of these works irrespective of doctrine.
So, I think some Christians do remarkable STRONG work in their traditions. And I am convinced that many Buddhist delude themselves and do very weak work in their tradition.
I see no need for the dichotomy and generalizations without a measure.
Now, if you are talking about the truth of particular doctrines, I understand your points. But as we know, people can use fiction in very powerful ways.

Ahhhh, thank you. From a comparative religious perspective, the “Validity” issue is pervasive. Every religion does this in intra-religious battles. I call such efforts “Prescriptive Religionists“. It tells me much more about humans than it does about Buddhists, Christians or whomever. Thanks for the thinkBuddha blog recommendation – read it, yes it was good.

“I believe that all Buddhist sects are valid.”

I don’t! While nearly all Buddhist sects seem valid to someone at least in my opinion, a few seem like major distortions of core teachings of Buddhism combined with a cult of personality and an abusive spiritual community, and therefore harmful to most of their members. Potential examples include Frederick Lenz and his “American Buddhism” that claimed one’s spiritual development was directly correlated with one’s income (and thus contribution to the group’s coffers): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Lenz#Criticisms_and_controversial_incidents

That’s just one example, but the general point is that I’m wary of that universal generalization.

Two points: sometimes students see past the teacher’s personal failings and connect with authentic dharma– credit is due to the students and the dharma, in these cases.

And most of these instances of which I have some personal knowledge involve teachers who began as ‘Hindu’-style gurus, who then saw better marketing opportunities and declared themselves ‘Buddhists.’

How do we deal with our “shadow” if we choose a realigion that fit’s us? Isn’t a possibility to start from the begining diving into our shadow? What do you think?

Should we choose a religion that is a constant challenge to the way we relate to the world, or should we opt for something that will not confront us? For example, i dont like sutra, i think it doesn’t fit me. But maybe that’s what i nedd, since sutra confronts the vision of the world i hold. Shouldn’t we choose the most disgustful religion to us?