DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - In Which Alexander Berzin Calls the Buddha's Liberative Teachings "Dharma Lite"

**Zdmlscid** · 06-21-2010, 07:58 AM

I think you are harsh in claiming that he is addressing himself to the whole of Buddhism in his essay, though. His very first words are "Tibetan Buddhism", and he acknowledges the influence of Indian religion in its history.

Thank you, WS. With the most respect, I do not think I am being harsh on him at all, though, and we can see several instances in his essay above in which he speaks for "Buddhism", and says "Buddhism". I will only show a couple of them, as I know you will be able to see the point i am making here:

Thus, we aim to improve this lifetime with the Dharma methods merely as a steppingstone on the way to working to improve our future rebirths and to gain liberation and enlightenment. Thus, Dharma-Lite becomes a preliminary step on the graded path to enlightenment, a step prior to the initial scope. Such an approach is completely fair to the Buddhist tradition. It does not call Dharma-Lite 'The Real Thing'."

"2. We may practice it with the recognition that Dharma-Lite is not only the actual Dharma, but also the most appropriate and skillful form for Western Buddhism to take. Such an approach shortchanges and is grossly unfair to the Buddhist tradition. It easily leads to an attitude of cultural arrogance."

"Schematic Summary of Dharma-Lite: Buddhism becomes Dharma-Lite when...

Schematic Summary of The Real Thing Dharma: The Real Thing Dharma is the authentic traditional practice of Buddhism, in which...

...and so on.

You see, WS, the tibetan religion's dogma holds that there is "only one Buddhism", consisting of three parts in a hierarchy from inferior to superior: the (derisively named) Hinayana, the Mahayana, and the Vajrayana. The tibetan religion holds that this is all one "Buddhism". So of course Berzin claims to speak for all of "Buddhism" here, because he sees his religion as the pinnacle of "Buddhism", best able to speak for all of what he thinks is "Buddhism".

My point is this: Tibetan Buddhism without acceptance of rebirth is a poor thing. Any Westerner who takes on Tibetan Buddhism but is selective about what parts they will and will not accept is not a Tibetan Buddhist at all, but is a New Age pick-and-mixer.

So from the point of view of writing about Tibetan Buddhism, Berzin has got a point.

Oh, the tibetan religion's doctrine collapses completely, house of cards that it is, without reincarnation. And for the tibetan religion, it is reincarnation, and not this "re-birth" convolution, and they make no bones about that.
I agree that anyone who takes on the tibetan religion is bound to their tenets. I do not see the tibetan religion as "Buddhism" at all. It may have adopted some of the Buddha's teachings, but that is only because his teachings are universal and applicable to anyone. Beyond that, it is an entirely other religion, just as hinduism has adopted the Buddha as one of its gods, and is nonetheless a completely different religion, with different and incompatible doctrines.

A lot of New Age pick-and-mixers fall in love with the tibetan religion, BTW, I would guess because of its exotic air of mystery. That and the profusion of incense to cover the clouds of pot smoke.

Exactly so. He's talking about Tibetan Buddhism, so don't castigate him for bringing lam-rim into it.

Oh, I'm not, I'm just pointing out that lam-rim is strictly a contrivance of the tibetan religion.

When he goes on to refer to "Buddhism", it's in the context of Tibetan Buddhism.

If he wanted to address all schools and all traditions of Buddhism, he would say so explicitly.

But like I say, he doesn't have to announce when he thinks he is speaking for all of "Buddhism", because he thinks he already is.

Berzin has studied Tibetan Buddhism for a long. long time and he's strayed into examining other traditions in order to compare and contrast, in order to examine the boundaries, no doubt. He's written a little about the other kinds of Buddhism, too, because that's what academics do.

But I would have no interest in what he has to write, as he is an adherent of the tibetan religion and I am an adherent of the Buddha's teachings.

I think Tibetan Buddhists will always recognise rebirth in the context of re-incarnation, that some consciousness moves from one body to another. And you will never accept such a view.

Of course I will not, because this is one of the things that places the tibetan religion at odds with, and outside of the scope of, the Buddha's teachings, and therefore outside of Buddhism.

06-21-2010, 07:58 AM	#5
Zdmlscid Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 384 Senior Member	I think you are harsh in claiming that he is addressing himself to the whole of Buddhism in his essay, though. His very first words are "Tibetan Buddhism", and he acknowledges the influence of Indian religion in its history. Thank you, WS. With the most respect, I do not think I am being harsh on him at all, though, and we can see several instances in his essay above in which he speaks for "Buddhism", and says "Buddhism". I will only show a couple of them, as I know you will be able to see the point i am making here: Thus, we aim to improve this lifetime with the Dharma methods merely as a steppingstone on the way to working to improve our future rebirths and to gain liberation and enlightenment. Thus, Dharma-Lite becomes a preliminary step on the graded path to enlightenment, a step prior to the initial scope. Such an approach is completely fair to the Buddhist tradition. It does not call Dharma-Lite 'The Real Thing'." "2. We may practice it with the recognition that Dharma-Lite is not only the actual Dharma, but also the most appropriate and skillful form for Western Buddhism to take. Such an approach shortchanges and is grossly unfair to the Buddhist tradition. It easily leads to an attitude of cultural arrogance." "Schematic Summary of Dharma-Lite: Buddhism becomes Dharma-Lite when... Schematic Summary of The Real Thing Dharma: The Real Thing Dharma is the authentic traditional practice of Buddhism, in which... ...and so on. You see, WS, the tibetan religion's dogma holds that there is "only one Buddhism", consisting of three parts in a hierarchy from inferior to superior: the (derisively named) Hinayana, the Mahayana, and the Vajrayana. The tibetan religion holds that this is all one "Buddhism". So of course Berzin claims to speak for all of "Buddhism" here, because he sees his religion as the pinnacle of "Buddhism", best able to speak for all of what he thinks is "Buddhism". My point is this: Tibetan Buddhism without acceptance of rebirth is a poor thing. Any Westerner who takes on Tibetan Buddhism but is selective about what parts they will and will not accept is not a Tibetan Buddhist at all, but is a New Age pick-and-mixer. So from the point of view of writing about Tibetan Buddhism, Berzin has got a point. Oh, the tibetan religion's doctrine collapses completely, house of cards that it is, without reincarnation. And for the tibetan religion, it is reincarnation, and not this "re-birth" convolution, and they make no bones about that. I agree that anyone who takes on the tibetan religion is bound to their tenets. I do not see the tibetan religion as "Buddhism" at all. It may have adopted some of the Buddha's teachings, but that is only because his teachings are universal and applicable to anyone. Beyond that, it is an entirely other religion, just as hinduism has adopted the Buddha as one of its gods, and is nonetheless a completely different religion, with different and incompatible doctrines. A lot of New Age pick-and-mixers fall in love with the tibetan religion, BTW, I would guess because of its exotic air of mystery. That and the profusion of incense to cover the clouds of pot smoke. Exactly so. He's talking about Tibetan Buddhism, so don't castigate him for bringing lam-rim into it. Oh, I'm not, I'm just pointing out that lam-rim is strictly a contrivance of the tibetan religion. When he goes on to refer to "Buddhism", it's in the context of Tibetan Buddhism. If he wanted to address all schools and all traditions of Buddhism, he would say so explicitly. But like I say, he doesn't have to announce when he thinks he is speaking for all of "Buddhism", because he thinks he already is. Berzin has studied Tibetan Buddhism for a long. long time and he's strayed into examining other traditions in order to compare and contrast, in order to examine the boundaries, no doubt. He's written a little about the other kinds of Buddhism, too, because that's what academics do. But I would have no interest in what he has to write, as he is an adherent of the tibetan religion and I am an adherent of the Buddha's teachings. I think Tibetan Buddhists will always recognise rebirth in the context of re-incarnation, that some consciousness moves from one body to another. And you will never accept such a view. Of course I will not, because this is one of the things that places the tibetan religion at odds with, and outside of the scope of, the Buddha's teachings, and therefore outside of Buddhism.
	Quote