It’s like the Yin and Yang symbol where you have the white part that has the black dot in it. I’ve always seen that as the seed potentially of evil in all that is good how all that is good can be corrupted, perverted, twisted and bent and the black side representing evil but with the white dot in it showing that evil does not exits in and of itself but is just corrupted,perverted,twisted, and bent goodness.
To me it seems that when someone uses the term "secular buddhism" its almost as if the followers of this type of Buddhism want to "believe" into something that transcends themselves, but its like they don't want to believe or commit enough to actually meaningfully change their lives. It's like "I'll believe. Buddha was a nice teacher. But I'll keep staying in this materialistic life, I don't want to believe the parts I don't like, I'll pick what I like" and you get the idea. It is difficult for me to understand.
Ok, "interdependence" suggesting that everything is a complex web of cause and effect relationships. I am aware that it is being said that this isn't like saying "the devil made me do it", but I think it literally is. Since we do not know who and how is responsible for something we cannot just assume that the concept of moral agency and decision making still does not lay in the individual who controls their body. This can lead to a number of things which I am pretty sure the secular Buddhists especially will not like. For example the idea of abortion which was caused by rape. If this concept of interdependency is applied then we have to reject the value of bodily autonomy, or the circumstance of hypothetical rape. Although I think people who are secular Buddhists would likely support any abortion, although I could be wrong. Another thing this concept leads to is the concept of justice and the whole justice system. For example are you going to tell some ethnic minority who suffers from racism that "everything is interdependent, so you have to consider that there is some aspect in which you are also to blame. It is what is being suggested. Note, that when I give those examples I am not stating that either perspective is the one I would take. I am just saying that if someone calls themselves a "secular Buddhist" you are accepting a position that there is no right or wrong, that everything is relative, and you also kind of insert the individualism aspect from the western society. If I am wrong about this entirely, please correct me. It is possible.
It’s like the Yin and Yang symbol where you have the white part that has the black dot in it. I’ve always seen that as the seed potentially of evil in all that is good how all that is good can be corrupted, perverted, twisted and bent and the black side representing evil but with the white dot in it showing that evil does not exits in and of itself but is just corrupted,perverted,twisted, and bent goodness.
To me it seems that when someone uses the term "secular buddhism" its almost as if the followers of this type of Buddhism want to "believe" into something that transcends themselves, but its like they don't want to believe or commit enough to actually meaningfully change their lives. It's like "I'll believe. Buddha was a nice teacher. But I'll keep staying in this materialistic life, I don't want to believe the parts I don't like, I'll pick what I like" and you get the idea. It is difficult for me to understand.
It's great that you also post on yt for those who can't afford or don't have access to Apple music or spotify
Ok, "interdependence" suggesting that everything is a complex web of cause and effect relationships. I am aware that it is being said that this isn't like saying "the devil made me do it", but I think it literally is. Since we do not know who and how is responsible for something we cannot just assume that the concept of moral agency and decision making still does not lay in the individual who controls their body. This can lead to a number of things which I am pretty sure the secular Buddhists especially will not like. For example the idea of abortion which was caused by rape. If this concept of interdependency is applied then we have to reject the value of bodily autonomy, or the circumstance of hypothetical rape. Although I think people who are secular Buddhists would likely support any abortion, although I could be wrong.
Another thing this concept leads to is the concept of justice and the whole justice system. For example are you going to tell some ethnic minority who suffers from racism that "everything is interdependent, so you have to consider that there is some aspect in which you are also to blame. It is what is being suggested.
Note, that when I give those examples I am not stating that either perspective is the one I would take. I am just saying that if someone calls themselves a "secular Buddhist" you are accepting a position that there is no right or wrong, that everything is relative, and you also kind of insert the individualism aspect from the western society.
If I am wrong about this entirely, please correct me. It is possible.
Tbh man the holocaust is a bad example.