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

**LindaSmithIV** · 06-21-2010, 12:05 PM

Frankly, I think Berzin's "dharma lite" is a humourous attempt at describing a certain approach to the dharma.

Derision of the Buddha's liberative teachings is far from humor in the eyes of a Buddhist.

Unfortunately, this humour is not seen by those who are obstinately attached to their views.

Yes, like the ones who parrot Berzin's nonsense "Dharma Lite" epithet derisively in Buddhist chat groups...

What is more, dharma lite applies to students who simply leave out certain aspects of the dharma.

Well, there's "The Dharma(TM)" and then there's the Buddhadhamma, which is a whole lot lighter indeed, as it is unencumbered by superstition and cultural baggage, and is the taste of freedom.

It does not apply to students who actively skew, distort, and redefine the dharma to fit their own terms.

Good thing we are concerned with investigating and following the Buddha's own liberative teachings, then, rather than a bunch of superstitious cultural baggage!

The latter is not dharma lite anymore, but more in the way of quack dharma.

Oh, sort of like the tpe of "dharma" that listens to witch doctors and worships deities or discards the Buddha's liberative teachings as secondary to superstition. I see.

There is a big difference between dharma lite and quack dharma.

I should say so. Even Berzin's version of "Dharma Lite" has a chance to direct itself toward the Buddha's liberative teachings. Superstitious quack-dharma has been stuck in superstition for some 2000 years. It is no wonder there are any arhants left. They are not to be found in a religion of superstition.

The first could be described as an eclectic/agnostic approach, an approach that can be considered stepping stones.

...and hopefully one in which one will discover the Buddha's liberative teachings and dispense with the fetters of superstition.

The second approach, quack dharma, cannot be considered stepping stones, for obvious reasons.

Yes, unfortunately it is too mired in the cesspool of superstition to extricate itself to the light of the Buddha's liberative teachings.

After all, dharma lite is fairly innocuous compared to quack dharma.

Yes. Too bad you cannot see what the quack dharma is, and what the Buddhadhamma is. And so, having no reasonable argument or evidence to debate or discuss this with, you resort to innuendo and personal attack.s You can have them all back, along with your silly insistence that the sows ear of superstition is the silk purse of the Buddhadhamma. The above analysis of Berzin's preposterous essay must really touch a nerve on you, for you to react in this furious way instead of debating point by point as I have. I realize that you really have no case to argue or ground to stand on, but it is much better form to concede the debate gracefully than to exit shamefully in a fusillade of ad hominem, innuendo and bluster. I am embarrassed for you.

06-21-2010, 12:05 PM	#8
LindaSmithIV Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 351 Senior Member	Frankly, I think Berzin's "dharma lite" is a humourous attempt at describing a certain approach to the dharma. Derision of the Buddha's liberative teachings is far from humor in the eyes of a Buddhist. Unfortunately, this humour is not seen by those who are obstinately attached to their views. Yes, like the ones who parrot Berzin's nonsense "Dharma Lite" epithet derisively in Buddhist chat groups... What is more, dharma lite applies to students who simply leave out certain aspects of the dharma. Well, there's "The Dharma(TM)" and then there's the Buddhadhamma, which is a whole lot lighter indeed, as it is unencumbered by superstition and cultural baggage, and is the taste of freedom. It does not apply to students who actively skew, distort, and redefine the dharma to fit their own terms. Good thing we are concerned with investigating and following the Buddha's own liberative teachings, then, rather than a bunch of superstitious cultural baggage! The latter is not dharma lite anymore, but more in the way of quack dharma. Oh, sort of like the tpe of "dharma" that listens to witch doctors and worships deities or discards the Buddha's liberative teachings as secondary to superstition. I see. There is a big difference between dharma lite and quack dharma. I should say so. Even Berzin's version of "Dharma Lite" has a chance to direct itself toward the Buddha's liberative teachings. Superstitious quack-dharma has been stuck in superstition for some 2000 years. It is no wonder there are any arhants left. They are not to be found in a religion of superstition. The first could be described as an eclectic/agnostic approach, an approach that can be considered stepping stones. ...and hopefully one in which one will discover the Buddha's liberative teachings and dispense with the fetters of superstition. The second approach, quack dharma, cannot be considered stepping stones, for obvious reasons. Yes, unfortunately it is too mired in the cesspool of superstition to extricate itself to the light of the Buddha's liberative teachings. After all, dharma lite is fairly innocuous compared to quack dharma. Yes. Too bad you cannot see what the quack dharma is, and what the Buddhadhamma is. And so, having no reasonable argument or evidence to debate or discuss this with, you resort to innuendo and personal attack.s You can have them all back, along with your silly insistence that the sows ear of superstition is the silk purse of the Buddhadhamma. The above analysis of Berzin's preposterous essay must really touch a nerve on you, for you to react in this furious way instead of debating point by point as I have. I realize that you really have no case to argue or ground to stand on, but it is much better form to concede the debate gracefully than to exit shamefully in a fusillade of ad hominem, innuendo and bluster. I am embarrassed for you.
	Quote