It does surprise me that so many of these people who claim to be followers of Christ are so downright mean and hateful. It may be a technicality, and maybe I’m stretching the association, but isn’t there a commandment about taking God’s name in vain?

And right you are about fear. I contend that fear is a powerful motivator that is present in most of us most of the time.

Talk about ye of little faith.

I’d like to believe you’re right, that a “shepherd” is rather easy to identify, when you look closely. Yet we both know many, many people, otherwise reasonable, who believe in the message of characters like Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney. At the end of the day, it seems to me that these people, and their followers, hold an inherent belief that the universe is a hostile place to humankind, whereas Ghandi, Jesus, etc. generally encourage us to believe in benevolence. Even Hitler was widely perceived as a savior to the Germans, which says something to me about the strength of fear in the world.

One of the Buddha’s Ten Perfections is “discernment.” I like that word – that idea – a lot. It’s up to each of us to discern what’s right and what’s not, what’s skillful and what’s not. And – where Buddhism is concerned – being attached to any view is not skillful.

There is one exception, however, in the attachment to Right View. But even then, at the proper time, that attachment is let go.

You state: “…but yet it was me who thought that, and I will not blame religion or any other form of indoctrination for it.” It’s an impressive statement. The only thing any of us truly own is our karma (actions). Given that there is no higher authority, it’s up to each us to be our own authority and be accountable for our actions. One of the great things about this path is that the past really doesn’t matter so much – it’s what you do from this moment on that counts.

And, yes, I have to constantly remind myself of the value of those I find difficult to deal with. Of course, patience and equanimity are also among the Ten Perfections.

paulg

Nowadays in my mid-30s I like to describe myself as more of a political and social pragmatist, and not just in that quasi-condescendlingly “moderate” or “middle-of-the-road” way. I now realize that I need not take a partisan stance on every single societal issue, but instead should possess the discrimination to have a stand on each issue on its own merits, regardless of my core political sensibilities. I used to pray when I was a fundamentalist Christian that gay folks would be destroyed as per God’s true purpose. Now I recoil that this thought, but yet it was me who thought that, and I will not blame religion or any other form of indoctrination for it. I am happier now being more accepting of all folks, but I cannot change the fact that once I was an unenlightened, self-righteous bigot.

One of my favorite Buddhist guiding lights, Pema Chodron, said it best: “If we learn to open our hearts, anyone, including the people who drive us crazy, can be our teacher.”

Afraid I’m wrestling with the hindrance of jealousy.

And thanks for the book recommendation. The title alone tells me it’s a book I’d like to delve into.

I don’t know if you’ve read it, but you might enjoy “The Monk & the Philosopher.” A Buddhist monk, formerly trained as a biochemist, debates ontological issues with the father, a famous French philosopher. Especially relevant for us westerners who migrated to Buddhism.

I’m just ever so torn by this post. While I agree that you can’t just adapt practices any old way you choose and still really remain true to a genuine tradition, there seems to be here a hint of parochialism, as if there really is only one type of Buddhism, which you perhaps might say is represented by Ajahn Pasanno.

I was recently in China, and at one point the Chinese woman showing us around Beijing made the observation that the Buddhism that was practiced by Tibetans “is not real Buddhism. Is something different. Is not good.”

This is unfortunately similar to what some Buddhists seem to feel about their sister schools of practice. I have heard some Manhayana (greater vehicle) practitioners refer to Hinayana (lesser vehicle) as somehow inferior. In reality, as you probably know, “lesser” was originally meant to refer to the fact that the practice was appropriate to fewer devotees——dedicated monks, rather than the general public. “Greater” was never meant to apply “better,” just “bigger.”

The same thing is true of Hinayana devotees, who aren’t above viewing Zen or Tibetan Buddhism as somehow inferior, or even illegitimate.

All I’m saying is that I’m sometimes a bit disturbed by the faint hint of exclusivity that some schools of Buddhism bring to their views of other schools. This kind of attitude was prevalent in Christianity, which is why I gave up that practice. It therefore disappoints me when I hear it in Buddhists.

That being said, I did once hear the Dalai Lama, who is himself regarded as “certified” in several of the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism, say that he doesn’t blend the protocols, but practices them separately, each in their own way. He would not, however, offer any arrogant opinion that Zen wasn’t Buddhism. He would just say that it’s best to practice either in the Zen way or the Gulag way, not some mixture.