Anyway, he's become fairly prolific on G+ lately and a lot of what he has to say is legit and, while he says insight is overrated, I find several of the things he says to be rather insightful.
He wrote yesterday:
"I don’t understand, “Applied” Buddhism.
As a Tibetan Buddhist, for me, Buddhism isn’t something to meditate upon and then skype about your findings.
We listen, contemplate, and meditate."
And it really got me thinking about Applied Buddhism as a concept among Western Buddhists (Westerners who are Buddhists, not some new sect of Buddhism; the whole idea of there being a Western Buddhism annoys me, but that's for another post).
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate intent behind Applied Buddhism: taking compassion in meditation and attempting to carry it out into the world in the form of volunteerism and activism. I'm very aware that it's all too easy among Westerners for Dharma to devolve into an intellectual circle-jerk.
Still, I think that it is, in a sense, unnecessary and actually somewhat harmful to Buddhism in the West to act like there's something called "Applied Buddhism" because it creates a false dichotomy, like all Buddhism isn't applied.
Buddhism, at its core, is about manifesting compassion and wisdom in everyday life. Dharma is pointless if it doesn't have a real impact. Otherwise, what are we doing? Sitting and staring at our navels, spouting platitudes? All of Buddhism is applied, all of Buddhism is meant to be brought from the cushion in your routine. That's the point.
Saying "Applied" Buddhism is like saying "free gift" or "lesbian woman". If your Buddhism isn't applied, you're not doing it right.
So, I also don't get "Applied" Buddhism.
No comments:
Post a Comment