The essay title might be a little provocative, but the Buddhist understanding of our true Self being well beyond our atomized vision of of race, class, ethnicity and sex can't be stated too much.
I wonder though why so few practitioners (and teachers for that matter) continue to sidestep a core tenet of the Buddha's teachings; that of our individual lifetime as being one of many. That this has been now backed up by rigorous scientific investigation for 50 years (Division of Perceptual Studies, University of Virginia) would seem to give Western writers a foundation that is certainly more than "taking it on faith." In any case, I won't argue that point beyond saying it's central my own practice and is clearly central to most Buddhist texts. Actually, I became Buddhist "because" of persistent past life memories; it's not a "belief" as much as an understanding.
Even if one has no living memories of previous lifetimes, contemplating this concept will inevitably lead to some pretty radical realignments of how we view people out in "the world." I personally recall a moment during meditation where I realized that all my "family history," which recorded back to 300 years, is really not "mine" at all. It happened, obviously, but I'm less a part of it than temporarily adopting it. Sure, my "body" and upbringing inherited plenty from the last two generations, but that's all it really is: an external set of clothing you're given to "play" a given persona for a little while.
At the same time, though our current body may have inherited some generational karma, there's nothing at all to say that your consciousness shared in any of it. It's more likely it didn't, at least not in the way we assume. One's "body" today may black, or white, or ethnic Han, male or female, weak or healthy, beautiful or ugly, wealthy or in poverty...it's practically endless, which of course, is BY DESIGN. We come to "play" and forget. Luckily the Buddha, the embodiment of our actual real Self came along and said: "Hey, you know, there's a much better way than all "this."
Once this perspective settles in? It becomes nearly impossible to truly see anyone as the "other" for very long. At some point we "were" that other, and likely will be again.
Hi Philip. Thanks for your perspective. I agree. There's absolutely objective proof that racism exists in some Buddhist institutions, just like there is in most human institutions. But I’m not talking about individual behavior. I’m pointing to how the Dhamma itself has been reframed in the West—often subtly, often with good intentions—through modern ideologies that shift its core aim from liberation of the mind to social reform.
That’s what I mean by conceptual colonization. Not conquest—redefinition.
The Buddha taught that clinging—even to righteous views—leads to suffering. That’s not rose-colored. That’s the path.
I'm sharing what I’ve seen through long-term practice, study of early texts, and watching how these patterns play out. You’re free to disagree. But I’m not confused about what I’m seeing.
Nor is the Dharma inherently flawed, or "inclined" towards taking on ethnic or cultural prejudice. That's humanity, through and through. It's not naive to point out that the Buddha's teaching expressly seeks to rise above our own inherent desires to separate and fragment.
According to many historical accounts, Jesus also was also radically egalitarian, welcoming women, beggars and the formerly corrupt rich into his circle. Challenging the power structures of the day obviously cost him his life. That the man who proclaimed "blessed are the poor, for they shall inherit the earth" would be subverted into an arm of the waning Roman empire does not discredit the original teaching.
Buddhism as a set of enlightened truths is arguably the most purely handed down path for Living the world has recorded. That there would be a desire to help codify and disseminate that via tradition and institutions is certainly understandable. That once those structures are put in place they become vulnerable to taking on the flaws of those running it should be no surprise at all (disappointing as it can be).
I agree, Douglas, neither the Dhamma nor Jesus’ teachings were flawed. My post wasn’t suggesting otherwise. I’m making the same point you are: it’s not the teachings that create division, it’s what humans do with them, and how we project, grasp, institutionalize, and filter truth through identity or ideology.
What I am calling out is how contemporary frameworks like critical theory or trauma-centered activism often co-opt Buddhism in ways that reinforce clinging to identity, which is precisely what the Buddha warned against. When the Dhamma becomes a tool to validate our social conditioning rather than dismantle it, we’re not following the path anymore—we're distorting it.
The Jesus example is apt. It shows how even the most radical spiritual teachings can be absorbed into the very systems they challenged. My concern is that we’re watching the same thing happen to Buddhism in the West—not because the teaching is flawed, but because we keep trying to reshape it to serve agendas it was meant to free us from. Thanks for playing!
Well, Jesus was certainly NOT Catholic, so I think I can.
Sure: I don't equate the vast scope of what the Buddha taught to what is barely an introductory paragraph by Jesus, but it's pretty clear he was heading in that direction. What anyone else chose to do with his teachings is not the fault of the source. There are so-called "militant Buddhists" too, which again is utterly disconnected from the truth the Buddha shared.
The essay title might be a little provocative, but the Buddhist understanding of our true Self being well beyond our atomized vision of of race, class, ethnicity and sex can't be stated too much.
I wonder though why so few practitioners (and teachers for that matter) continue to sidestep a core tenet of the Buddha's teachings; that of our individual lifetime as being one of many. That this has been now backed up by rigorous scientific investigation for 50 years (Division of Perceptual Studies, University of Virginia) would seem to give Western writers a foundation that is certainly more than "taking it on faith." In any case, I won't argue that point beyond saying it's central my own practice and is clearly central to most Buddhist texts. Actually, I became Buddhist "because" of persistent past life memories; it's not a "belief" as much as an understanding.
Even if one has no living memories of previous lifetimes, contemplating this concept will inevitably lead to some pretty radical realignments of how we view people out in "the world." I personally recall a moment during meditation where I realized that all my "family history," which recorded back to 300 years, is really not "mine" at all. It happened, obviously, but I'm less a part of it than temporarily adopting it. Sure, my "body" and upbringing inherited plenty from the last two generations, but that's all it really is: an external set of clothing you're given to "play" a given persona for a little while.
At the same time, though our current body may have inherited some generational karma, there's nothing at all to say that your consciousness shared in any of it. It's more likely it didn't, at least not in the way we assume. One's "body" today may black, or white, or ethnic Han, male or female, weak or healthy, beautiful or ugly, wealthy or in poverty...it's practically endless, which of course, is BY DESIGN. We come to "play" and forget. Luckily the Buddha, the embodiment of our actual real Self came along and said: "Hey, you know, there's a much better way than all "this."
Once this perspective settles in? It becomes nearly impossible to truly see anyone as the "other" for very long. At some point we "were" that other, and likely will be again.
Hi Philip. Thanks for your perspective. I agree. There's absolutely objective proof that racism exists in some Buddhist institutions, just like there is in most human institutions. But I’m not talking about individual behavior. I’m pointing to how the Dhamma itself has been reframed in the West—often subtly, often with good intentions—through modern ideologies that shift its core aim from liberation of the mind to social reform.
That’s what I mean by conceptual colonization. Not conquest—redefinition.
The Buddha taught that clinging—even to righteous views—leads to suffering. That’s not rose-colored. That’s the path.
I'm sharing what I’ve seen through long-term practice, study of early texts, and watching how these patterns play out. You’re free to disagree. But I’m not confused about what I’m seeing.
Agreed for sure- my comment was actually in response to Philip's Comment. :)
:). Ahhh, alas, digital communication. Thanks to you both. I appreciate the conversation!
@Philip:
Nor is the Dharma inherently flawed, or "inclined" towards taking on ethnic or cultural prejudice. That's humanity, through and through. It's not naive to point out that the Buddha's teaching expressly seeks to rise above our own inherent desires to separate and fragment.
According to many historical accounts, Jesus also was also radically egalitarian, welcoming women, beggars and the formerly corrupt rich into his circle. Challenging the power structures of the day obviously cost him his life. That the man who proclaimed "blessed are the poor, for they shall inherit the earth" would be subverted into an arm of the waning Roman empire does not discredit the original teaching.
Buddhism as a set of enlightened truths is arguably the most purely handed down path for Living the world has recorded. That there would be a desire to help codify and disseminate that via tradition and institutions is certainly understandable. That once those structures are put in place they become vulnerable to taking on the flaws of those running it should be no surprise at all (disappointing as it can be).
I agree, Douglas, neither the Dhamma nor Jesus’ teachings were flawed. My post wasn’t suggesting otherwise. I’m making the same point you are: it’s not the teachings that create division, it’s what humans do with them, and how we project, grasp, institutionalize, and filter truth through identity or ideology.
What I am calling out is how contemporary frameworks like critical theory or trauma-centered activism often co-opt Buddhism in ways that reinforce clinging to identity, which is precisely what the Buddha warned against. When the Dhamma becomes a tool to validate our social conditioning rather than dismantle it, we’re not following the path anymore—we're distorting it.
The Jesus example is apt. It shows how even the most radical spiritual teachings can be absorbed into the very systems they challenged. My concern is that we’re watching the same thing happen to Buddhism in the West—not because the teaching is flawed, but because we keep trying to reshape it to serve agendas it was meant to free us from. Thanks for playing!
If you had as much severe Catholic trauma as I do you would not rush to drag in Jesus here
You'll get no 'trouble' from me, Philip. It's also my house (wink).
That and a Catholic school shooting and a Catholic sex crime suicide by my brother who studied to be a priest.
I could get incendiary so easily
I got no issues with you ,I’m a dreaded power troll on X. I trolled Shambhala for five years on Reddit , I know my stuff
Well, Jesus was certainly NOT Catholic, so I think I can.
Sure: I don't equate the vast scope of what the Buddha taught to what is barely an introductory paragraph by Jesus, but it's pretty clear he was heading in that direction. What anyone else chose to do with his teachings is not the fault of the source. There are so-called "militant Buddhists" too, which again is utterly disconnected from the truth the Buddha shared.