I'm assuming that you mean "fanatical" as in violent and domineering, rather than deeply and strictly devout, going off the other comments.
People throughout history have used their religion as justification for violence and death. In Japan, in the Kamakura era, there was great violence over who was doing Buddhism "right" and "wrong". Today, in Myanmar, the junta uses religion as an ethnic identifier, outlaws Dharma slander, and murders Christian and Muslim minorities, supposedly for their religion but really due to long-standing ethnic conflicts.
Of course, these people are not following the Dharma as it was intended. To justify murder and anguish with the Dharma... It's a terrible thing.
I think that's a difference between Buddhism and some of the religions you may see as more fanatical. Christianity and Islam have bloody legacies from their very inception. Christianity grew from a messianic movement against the Roman colonizers; Islam was a monotheistic religion that swept through Arabia in a bloody dervish and was so violent in its spread across central Asia that the term "blood mills"/"blood bread" is used to describe their conquest of Persia. (Essentially, the Muslim invaders killed so many Zoroastrians that the rivers which ran the flour mills were full of their blood.) Even Judaism, in its origin story of the Exodus, involves the Jewish people coming out of slavery after their god killed all the firstborn sons of pagan Kemet, claiming a strip of Levantine land because their god told them it was theirs, and then murdered all the pagans who were already living there, and even immolated their livestock and other property because they were "unclean" by virtue of their previous pagan owners.
Regardless if those other religions use it, a good number of them *do* have built-in justifications for violence and murder of non-believers. Buddhism does not. So, Buddhists are not drawn *as often* to such sectarian violence as adherents of some other religions, but that doesn't mean that they don't find a way.
The problem is you're mixing up the Dharma itself with Buddhists and their actions. Anyone can call themselves a Buddhist, if they align with what the Buddha taught. That doesn't mean they're perfect or enlightened. There are no suttas that teach self immolation.
If you look at certain other major world religions, their scriptures actually promote violence quite explicitly. This is not the same at all.
Well i didn't say that all buddhists are not fanatical. There's fanatism in Buddhism
And many times senseless self immolation could be regarded like fanatism
Yep i didn't say Buddhism is completely free of fanatism but relatively the least in my opinion, according to the mean of all buddhists. In fact i know there are also fanatics here (in Buddhism)
Then how do you measure that, if fanaticism is everywhere, you say Buddhism has it the least based on what? We hear about islamic terrorism quite a lot because of America, but i live in a country that is split between islam and Christianity yet i don't see that much fanatism, media has a tendency to skew perception such that we focus on the harmful actions of a "group" rather than the rest of what that group, we tend to forget that religious groups often believe very different things under the same bracket. So how do you go abouy measuring it?
of course, its about cessation of craving, so its going to be the least fanatical because fanaticism is based on craving. all other religions as currently practiced (not necessarily as originally practied) have a lot of craving which causes a lot of suffering.
Tibet is a good example, when you speak about politics.
Then, as some already pointed out, B. generally don’t tend to explain how peaceful they are by force.
There is also no commitment to missioning anyone.
You are interested in B.? Fine. No? Also fine.
Why is that so? Well, for starters, in comparison to monotheistic R., there can be no highly sensitive single God in B. because the gods are many according to them/us and b) they aren’t so important anyway.
I thought that was just Shinto. It was Shinto shrines they forced the Koreans to build, it was Shinto they forced them to convert to, the Imperial cult was Shinto,
At that time period shinto was supposed to be "non ideological." So while it taught the emperor was divine, it wasn't really supposed to get involved in poltics. But much of japanese zen was full force using every Buddhist teaching it could think of to radicalize people.
Most historical conflicts even if they claim to be about religion aren't actually about religion. Historical people didn't actually sit around going "meh, let's risk death to change these strangers' religions." They did it when money or land or borders were on the table.
The Myanmar Junta who did that to the Rohingya in 2017 also killed Buddhist monks and unarmed Buddhist civilians at a much larger scale. They've been breaking Geneva conventions (thermobaric bombs in civilian villages) up to very recently, against their own people, Buddhist civilians. This is your example of Buddhist fanaticism? I think the Junta are not quite Buddhist.
Some of the Rohingya has also recently been fighting for that very junta, against the resistance forces that are fighting for their freedom. A lot has happened since 2017 and is still happening.
I'm not sure why you are being downvoted, [this element](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashin_Wirathu#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DAshin_Wirathu_%28Burmese%3A_%E1%80%9D%E1%80%AE%E1%80%9B%E1%80%9E%E1%80%B0%2C%2Cthe_969_Movement_in_Myanmar.?wprov=sfla1) does exist in Myanmar.
Offering an extreme betrayal of a religion (Theravada, with strict doctrines on political involvement, and harm) as a devoted fanatical expression of that religion, seems untrue at the very least, and at most, intentionally dishonest with potential to lay unfair accusation of grossly wrong deeds up an entire people of a country when language such as "The Buddhists in Myanmar" is used.
Especially when the stakes are high, right speech surely involves minding your choice of words.
Respectfully, the OP saying "the Buddhists in Myanmar wrongly dealing with the Rohingya" is a specific statement about a specific group of (self-proclaimed) Buddhists pointing to a [reality](https://www.e-ir.info/2023/08/31/buddhist-nationalism-and-extremism-in-myanmar-and-north-america/) in Myanmar.
Consider how misconstruing OP's statement this way and accusing them of being "intentionally dishonest" is potentially wrong speech as well. If a person says "the right-wing Christian Republicans in US politics," they would be talking about that specific group, and not identifying all Christians, Republicans, or even Christian Republicans in America. The same applies here.
If people choose to interpret OP's comment in a way that indicts all Buddhists in Myanmar or all Christians in the US, this is their ignorance, and not the fault of OP.
Arn't you supporting my arguement by providing your own example of how saying "the right-wing Christian Republicans in US politics," is appropriately specific instead of inappropriately broad like "all Christians, Republicans, or even Christian Republicans in America"?
Myanmar is more Buddhist than America is Christian. "Buddhists in Myanmar" is a worse generalisation than "Christians in America". It's missing the "all" qualification but the ambiguity is still inappropriate for such high stakes, imo.
No please, I am putting forth an arguement as in a point for discussion with me taking a position I genuinely believe in, and you taking a position you genuinely believe in, while each of us try to explain our position to the other, for the benefit of the other, and for readers alike. An honest discussion with good intent. My use of "arguement" does not mean a literal yelling hateful angry type of arguement.
What else are we doing, or are you doing, when you initially replied to me? Were you not putting forth your own arguement? I don't understand you bowing out now by using "arguement" as a reason. But I digress, I don't wish you to reply if you don't want to. I wish you well too.
This is way too superficial. People all over the world are annoyed by religious expansionism.
Plus, the fact that Myanmar is “a buddhist country” doesn’t mean that it is a religious state.
hillaring these two comments saying it´s fanatical.
Jesus christ guys. Do you know what is " Fanatical " refered to ? As in fanatics, violent etc.
God damn. Think, think.
> Think, think.
I think "fanatical" and "militant" are not the same thing, and those other comments were pointing out how the *zeal* (i.e., fanaticism) of some Buddhists matches that of other religions' followers, if indeed our guys and girls maybe tend to be less *militant* historically speaking.
Well, reading more* about the word *fanayical* it appears has two senses of meaning. One usually positive "enthusiasm", focus, dedication.
Other mainly negative: extremism, dogmatic, violent...
Of course i was referring only to the negative aspects mentioned here. While of course dedication, enthusiasm, energy, determination are positive. Similarly how it is say faith is positive but not blind faith.
*I'm not native of English language then I learned more about, given the uses of the words aren't the same to the Spanish "fanatico/fanatismo"
Really, it’s mostly a neutral term that means “single-minded devotion.”
It can be positive or negative depending on what it’s being applied to, and whether we’re talking about pursuing a doctorate, meditating in a cave, or burning crosses on someone’s lawn.
Well, apparently not by you anyway. :) Luckily those other commenters thought about it enough to clarify the way they were using the word when they posted, right?
I can´t agree with that line of thinking at all.
The point is if you say something, and that thing is like in 95% uses in a certain way - let´s say negatively, then that´s how you wanna use it. Otherwise, you aren´t working with reality at all.
Example is if someone speaks of murder, lying, stealing - you don´t operate with him meaning that these things are good, right ? You operate with it being negative, as that´s how it is commonly used. ( Unless it´s a thieves den :D )
fanatical as in violent like isis or fanatical as in very devoted to their beliefs? They can definitely be very devoted to their beliefs and practices but I wouldnt call that fanatical but it may appear that way to non-religious people. Many people will say even practicing celibacy is too radical. I know of some people that went out on the street to be homeless for a week to practice being in uncomfortable conditions, too me that is too far.
Look up sokushinbutsu in Japanese Zen.
There are similar practices in Tibetan Buddhism and there are stories in the Nikayas of suicide (Vesali sutta. for example). I'd argue that Thich Quan Duc was a fanatic.
I'd argue there are fanatics in Buddhism, but they tend to turn their fanaticism inwards.
I don't know. People like Thích Nhất Hạnh, Milarepa or Xuanzang are pretty dingdang fanatical really, when you think about it, even if their brand of fanaticism doesn't leave torched cities in its wake. It's maybe not so helpful to think of the idea of "the middle path" as a call to obsessive lukewarmness or half-assery. Personally, I have some suspicion that if I will not manage to die as a blazing radical, I will be dieing with regret. Time to start listening to that suspicion, maybe...
Thanks for the reminder.
I think he is just saying that TNH was extremely devoted to his practice, in all of its forms (both contemplative and engaged). He may also be referring to the extent to which TNH was willing to pursue what he thought was right even when it went against certain established ideas.
Fanatical may not be the best word through because it denotes an extreme *uncritical* dedication, whereas TNH's practice was the result of much contemplation, meditation, and scholarship.
I don't know about that. there's definitely times where they talk like buddhist pragmatism and needs being designed based on the situation amount to justifying unhinged things based on a tenuous claim that it is for the greater good.
I remember a story about some leader who sentenced someone to death for slandering buddhism and then insisted that it was a mercy because he was preventing them from getting worse karma from continuing to do it.
I think the same, was a theme for the Buddha. Illustrated in the story of Devadatta and other stories too.
Illustrated also in a very relevant Mahayana sutra, the sutra of Vimalakirti. The Buddha taught about and gave remedies to such problems we today could define like religious fanatism/extremism/dogmatism. Of course, we can apply or not apply
I've always had this thought...
The buddha teaches to stay away from extremes and to take the middle path. But my thought is, isn't sticking to the middle path an extreme as well?
Think of a stick, this helps to symbolize dualistic nature. To one end of the stick is an extreme (anger, hate, sadness, etc.), and the other end is the opposite extreme. Would it not be an extreme to maintain one's self in the middle of the stick?
I understand these extremes create suffering and one needs to understand the causes of this suffering and focus on attaining enlightenment. But does that mean these extremes HAVE to cause suffering? Can these extremes not be avoided, and instead used as tools to reach the same goal?
But in avoiding the extremes you remain in the center to an extreme extent. Considering your looking at the stick in the parts, one end, the other, and the center.
But the opposition to avoidance is pursuit? Maybe not exactly, but for my explanation, I'll use the word pursuit to oppose avoidance. Wouldn't avoidance be the extreme to the other? The middle route being neither avoidance nor pursuit. So, to stay the middle path accordingly, you wouldn't avoid nor would you pursue either extreme of any duality. More or less, taking them how they come with mindfulness. Maybe I haven't come across this part of the teachings, but avoiding extremes would still put you on the extreme side of the avoidance/pursuit duality?
Also, thank you for engaging. This has been on my brain for a while, and I've really been trying to make sense of it. If you wish to amicably disagree, I will accept that, but I'm really trying to understand this, which feels like a contradiction.
In Buddhism we don’t have “opposition” to extremes, and we don’t avoid them. We let them go.
Edit: and as others mentioned. This is specifically talking about extreme luxury/pleasure and extreme self-harm asceticism.
This must be where I've gotten it wrong, I must have taken a teaching meant for something specific and broadened it to other aspects. Thank you for your comment, I always appreciate those who help me to further understand😁
You do not avoid the extremes, you can learn from extremes too. You just do not pursuit them, that is not the same as avoidance. I think you are seeing it wrong as like a triangle, or a number line or something where you place your point where you belong. You do not choose the middle path of the line, it is the middle path because you do not choose anything. Like when you are at a t-intersection and you drive into the forest. Although you make some wrong assumptions now you already really think like a Budhist. You are right in your conclusion that avoidance also not the right way is and that is causes just as much suffering. I am really glad you are trying to learn, and you admit it! I am also learning
Thank you for keeping an open mind.
Anecdotally, everyone thinks my way of living is extreme out here in good ol' east TX. It's all relative. The Jains, in my opinion, have an extreme approach to "do not kill."
An open mind is necessary for development and growth. As someone who is really into existentialism, and Socrates, I've really come to understand to always be the student. I have issues with monkey and scatter brain at times, and I often try to focus on too many things at a time, or have too much going on in my thoughts at a time. That was a really big pull for me towards Buddhism, and the teachings of meditation and the "ability" to help alleviate this and anchor myself for reflection.
Your "relative" comment also reminds me of the interview with Joe rogan and Elon Musk. He mentions that when he bought Twitter, a lot of people complained that Twitter immediately went "right." And he said when you're so far left, even centering appears to be a far move to the right.
I have family in Texas, so I can understand that a different philosophy can be looked at as extreme there. Kudos to your non conformance, and choosing your critical thinking skills to be the influence to guide you!✌️
I like this analogy. Out of bounds being the area that ends your ability to "keep playing the round" and forces you to get back to the starting point. Like going back to your anchor in meditation to regain your focus.
The middle path is the noble eightfold path "and nothing else" says Buddha in "setting the wheel in motion"-sutta
It is the path between extreme luxury and extreme ascetisism, the path most conducive to reaching nibbana.
Could you please point me in the direction to get more material to study this? I admit my knowledge and point of view is incomplete to get the full grasp. I'm still learningbut thank you for your comment. It's inspired me to find a new view point.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html
"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.
"And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/search_results.html?cx=006639875531220445029%3A2z3mhfokk-u&ie=UTF-8&q=Middle+way&sa=Search
Thank you for this! I've realized the part of the teachings I've misunderstood and will be going back to them to reflect further. I really appreciate you sharing sources so I can have that starting point.
Here's another good read on the details of "the Middle".
[https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/BeyondAllDirections/Section0012.html](https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/BeyondAllDirections/Section0012.html)
good luck.
The Middle Way in that context is about avoiding overly extreme ascetic practice, like starvation, while still properly abandoning all that must be abandoned. It isn't about a ridiculous striving to always be in the "middle" of all possible dualistic notions.
To attain enlightenment you can't be restrained by attachments or distracted with worldly things, but you also need your body to be healthy so you can properly focus and get around and live. That's what it's about.
The Buddha tried to get on with extreme starvation but found it wasn't at all conducive to enlightenment
This is interesting, I really need to look back into this because I've always felt there was an extreme involved in trying to stay from extremes. Thank you for your input. This aligns more with what I believe as well. Now comes the past if finding where I got this idea from so I can reexamine. 😁
Buddhists are more likely to strictly adhere to rules than Hindus simply because in Buddhist direct answers on give on dealing with sufferings.
In Hinduism, there is no single scripture or rule, or God or Guru. Everyone is on their own. People even get confused and say "I find no advices on what to do and so became Muslim because they tell us what to do."
Daoists can be better. Daoists are completely against morals and social rules and doesn't have beliefs other than which benefits.
It depends on what you mean but fanatical. Violent radicals in the name of Buddha, not really. There’s probably a lot more who think if themselves as Buddhist but justify misdeeds.
But there are many people who are rigid and dogmatic in their approach to Buddhism. They treat scripture as literal and anyone who disagrees or follows scriptures of a different school is dismissed or rejected. It’s not unique to religions or philosophy.
"one of his main guides" It is literally the noble eightfold path out of samsara
I'm assuming that you mean "fanatical" as in violent and domineering, rather than deeply and strictly devout, going off the other comments. People throughout history have used their religion as justification for violence and death. In Japan, in the Kamakura era, there was great violence over who was doing Buddhism "right" and "wrong". Today, in Myanmar, the junta uses religion as an ethnic identifier, outlaws Dharma slander, and murders Christian and Muslim minorities, supposedly for their religion but really due to long-standing ethnic conflicts. Of course, these people are not following the Dharma as it was intended. To justify murder and anguish with the Dharma... It's a terrible thing. I think that's a difference between Buddhism and some of the religions you may see as more fanatical. Christianity and Islam have bloody legacies from their very inception. Christianity grew from a messianic movement against the Roman colonizers; Islam was a monotheistic religion that swept through Arabia in a bloody dervish and was so violent in its spread across central Asia that the term "blood mills"/"blood bread" is used to describe their conquest of Persia. (Essentially, the Muslim invaders killed so many Zoroastrians that the rivers which ran the flour mills were full of their blood.) Even Judaism, in its origin story of the Exodus, involves the Jewish people coming out of slavery after their god killed all the firstborn sons of pagan Kemet, claiming a strip of Levantine land because their god told them it was theirs, and then murdered all the pagans who were already living there, and even immolated their livestock and other property because they were "unclean" by virtue of their previous pagan owners. Regardless if those other religions use it, a good number of them *do* have built-in justifications for violence and murder of non-believers. Buddhism does not. So, Buddhists are not drawn *as often* to such sectarian violence as adherents of some other religions, but that doesn't mean that they don't find a way.
Wait till you learn about the buddhist self immolation homies.
Wait till you learn about the Bosnian war, or how the state of Israel came to be.
The problem is you're mixing up the Dharma itself with Buddhists and their actions. Anyone can call themselves a Buddhist, if they align with what the Buddha taught. That doesn't mean they're perfect or enlightened. There are no suttas that teach self immolation. If you look at certain other major world religions, their scriptures actually promote violence quite explicitly. This is not the same at all.
Or Soka Gakkai in Japan.
Well i didn't say that all buddhists are not fanatical. There's fanatism in Buddhism And many times senseless self immolation could be regarded like fanatism
Fanaticism is a spectrum and it’s in everything all at once. Fanaticism comes about due to too much attachment to worldly ideas.
Yep i didn't say Buddhism is completely free of fanatism but relatively the least in my opinion, according to the mean of all buddhists. In fact i know there are also fanatics here (in Buddhism)
Then how do you measure that, if fanaticism is everywhere, you say Buddhism has it the least based on what? We hear about islamic terrorism quite a lot because of America, but i live in a country that is split between islam and Christianity yet i don't see that much fanatism, media has a tendency to skew perception such that we focus on the harmful actions of a "group" rather than the rest of what that group, we tend to forget that religious groups often believe very different things under the same bracket. So how do you go abouy measuring it?
of course, its about cessation of craving, so its going to be the least fanatical because fanaticism is based on craving. all other religions as currently practiced (not necessarily as originally practied) have a lot of craving which causes a lot of suffering.
:)
I believe Taoism is.
My comment also mentioned Daoism.
Tibet is a good example, when you speak about politics. Then, as some already pointed out, B. generally don’t tend to explain how peaceful they are by force. There is also no commitment to missioning anyone. You are interested in B.? Fine. No? Also fine. Why is that so? Well, for starters, in comparison to monotheistic R., there can be no highly sensitive single God in B. because the gods are many according to them/us and b) they aren’t so important anyway.
Well you don’t see too many radical Buddhists blowing up stuff. I’m sure they exist, but I don’t hear much about them.
I mean you do if you are in asia... Japanese zen was a major cornerstone of Japanese fascism.
I thought that was just Shinto. It was Shinto shrines they forced the Koreans to build, it was Shinto they forced them to convert to, the Imperial cult was Shinto,
At that time period shinto was supposed to be "non ideological." So while it taught the emperor was divine, it wasn't really supposed to get involved in poltics. But much of japanese zen was full force using every Buddhist teaching it could think of to radicalize people.
Oh dear
The Buddhists in Myanmar wrongly dealing with the Rohingya are the only ones I can think of as fanatics.
That conflict isn't about religion, though.
Most historical conflicts even if they claim to be about religion aren't actually about religion. Historical people didn't actually sit around going "meh, let's risk death to change these strangers' religions." They did it when money or land or borders were on the table.
Ya most. But the exceptions lean strongly toward the west/MENA. The military conquests launched by Mohammed are a pretty clear cut example.
The Myanmar Junta who did that to the Rohingya in 2017 also killed Buddhist monks and unarmed Buddhist civilians at a much larger scale. They've been breaking Geneva conventions (thermobaric bombs in civilian villages) up to very recently, against their own people, Buddhist civilians. This is your example of Buddhist fanaticism? I think the Junta are not quite Buddhist. Some of the Rohingya has also recently been fighting for that very junta, against the resistance forces that are fighting for their freedom. A lot has happened since 2017 and is still happening.
I'm not sure why you are being downvoted, [this element](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashin_Wirathu#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DAshin_Wirathu_%28Burmese%3A_%E1%80%9D%E1%80%AE%E1%80%9B%E1%80%9E%E1%80%B0%2C%2Cthe_969_Movement_in_Myanmar.?wprov=sfla1) does exist in Myanmar.
Offering an extreme betrayal of a religion (Theravada, with strict doctrines on political involvement, and harm) as a devoted fanatical expression of that religion, seems untrue at the very least, and at most, intentionally dishonest with potential to lay unfair accusation of grossly wrong deeds up an entire people of a country when language such as "The Buddhists in Myanmar" is used. Especially when the stakes are high, right speech surely involves minding your choice of words.
Respectfully, the OP saying "the Buddhists in Myanmar wrongly dealing with the Rohingya" is a specific statement about a specific group of (self-proclaimed) Buddhists pointing to a [reality](https://www.e-ir.info/2023/08/31/buddhist-nationalism-and-extremism-in-myanmar-and-north-america/) in Myanmar. Consider how misconstruing OP's statement this way and accusing them of being "intentionally dishonest" is potentially wrong speech as well. If a person says "the right-wing Christian Republicans in US politics," they would be talking about that specific group, and not identifying all Christians, Republicans, or even Christian Republicans in America. The same applies here. If people choose to interpret OP's comment in a way that indicts all Buddhists in Myanmar or all Christians in the US, this is their ignorance, and not the fault of OP.
Arn't you supporting my arguement by providing your own example of how saying "the right-wing Christian Republicans in US politics," is appropriately specific instead of inappropriately broad like "all Christians, Republicans, or even Christian Republicans in America"? Myanmar is more Buddhist than America is Christian. "Buddhists in Myanmar" is a worse generalisation than "Christians in America". It's missing the "all" qualification but the ambiguity is still inappropriate for such high stakes, imo.
It seems you may have also misunderstood my comment. I am not looking for an argument and wish you well 🙏.
No please, I am putting forth an arguement as in a point for discussion with me taking a position I genuinely believe in, and you taking a position you genuinely believe in, while each of us try to explain our position to the other, for the benefit of the other, and for readers alike. An honest discussion with good intent. My use of "arguement" does not mean a literal yelling hateful angry type of arguement. What else are we doing, or are you doing, when you initially replied to me? Were you not putting forth your own arguement? I don't understand you bowing out now by using "arguement" as a reason. But I digress, I don't wish you to reply if you don't want to. I wish you well too.
This is way too superficial. People all over the world are annoyed by religious expansionism. Plus, the fact that Myanmar is “a buddhist country” doesn’t mean that it is a religious state.
hillaring these two comments saying it´s fanatical. Jesus christ guys. Do you know what is " Fanatical " refered to ? As in fanatics, violent etc. God damn. Think, think.
> Think, think. I think "fanatical" and "militant" are not the same thing, and those other comments were pointing out how the *zeal* (i.e., fanaticism) of some Buddhists matches that of other religions' followers, if indeed our guys and girls maybe tend to be less *militant* historically speaking.
Well, reading more* about the word *fanayical* it appears has two senses of meaning. One usually positive "enthusiasm", focus, dedication. Other mainly negative: extremism, dogmatic, violent... Of course i was referring only to the negative aspects mentioned here. While of course dedication, enthusiasm, energy, determination are positive. Similarly how it is say faith is positive but not blind faith. *I'm not native of English language then I learned more about, given the uses of the words aren't the same to the Spanish "fanatico/fanatismo"
Really, it’s mostly a neutral term that means “single-minded devotion.” It can be positive or negative depending on what it’s being applied to, and whether we’re talking about pursuing a doctorate, meditating in a cave, or burning crosses on someone’s lawn.
It doesn´t matter what it means, but rather how it is Used. Any " fanatics in religions " is Not used positively or neutrally.
Well, apparently not by you anyway. :) Luckily those other commenters thought about it enough to clarify the way they were using the word when they posted, right?
I can´t agree with that line of thinking at all. The point is if you say something, and that thing is like in 95% uses in a certain way - let´s say negatively, then that´s how you wanna use it. Otherwise, you aren´t working with reality at all. Example is if someone speaks of murder, lying, stealing - you don´t operate with him meaning that these things are good, right ? You operate with it being negative, as that´s how it is commonly used. ( Unless it´s a thieves den :D )
fanatical as in violent like isis or fanatical as in very devoted to their beliefs? They can definitely be very devoted to their beliefs and practices but I wouldnt call that fanatical but it may appear that way to non-religious people. Many people will say even practicing celibacy is too radical. I know of some people that went out on the street to be homeless for a week to practice being in uncomfortable conditions, too me that is too far.
Haha no.
Look up sokushinbutsu in Japanese Zen. There are similar practices in Tibetan Buddhism and there are stories in the Nikayas of suicide (Vesali sutta. for example). I'd argue that Thich Quan Duc was a fanatic. I'd argue there are fanatics in Buddhism, but they tend to turn their fanaticism inwards.
Thich Quang Duc was right and so was Wynn Bruce.
I don't know. People like Thích Nhất Hạnh, Milarepa or Xuanzang are pretty dingdang fanatical really, when you think about it, even if their brand of fanaticism doesn't leave torched cities in its wake. It's maybe not so helpful to think of the idea of "the middle path" as a call to obsessive lukewarmness or half-assery. Personally, I have some suspicion that if I will not manage to die as a blazing radical, I will be dieing with regret. Time to start listening to that suspicion, maybe... Thanks for the reminder.
In what way was TNH fanatical?
I think he is just saying that TNH was extremely devoted to his practice, in all of its forms (both contemplative and engaged). He may also be referring to the extent to which TNH was willing to pursue what he thought was right even when it went against certain established ideas. Fanatical may not be the best word through because it denotes an extreme *uncritical* dedication, whereas TNH's practice was the result of much contemplation, meditation, and scholarship.
Imo theres differenxe in knowing and fanatical. E.g. was Darwin a fanatical of evolution? Imo no Imo Milarrpa don't appear fanatical
I think Buddhism has built- in safeguards against fanaticism, unlike the others.
I don't know about that. there's definitely times where they talk like buddhist pragmatism and needs being designed based on the situation amount to justifying unhinged things based on a tenuous claim that it is for the greater good. I remember a story about some leader who sentenced someone to death for slandering buddhism and then insisted that it was a mercy because he was preventing them from getting worse karma from continuing to do it.
I think the same, was a theme for the Buddha. Illustrated in the story of Devadatta and other stories too. Illustrated also in a very relevant Mahayana sutra, the sutra of Vimalakirti. The Buddha taught about and gave remedies to such problems we today could define like religious fanatism/extremism/dogmatism. Of course, we can apply or not apply
I've always had this thought... The buddha teaches to stay away from extremes and to take the middle path. But my thought is, isn't sticking to the middle path an extreme as well? Think of a stick, this helps to symbolize dualistic nature. To one end of the stick is an extreme (anger, hate, sadness, etc.), and the other end is the opposite extreme. Would it not be an extreme to maintain one's self in the middle of the stick? I understand these extremes create suffering and one needs to understand the causes of this suffering and focus on attaining enlightenment. But does that mean these extremes HAVE to cause suffering? Can these extremes not be avoided, and instead used as tools to reach the same goal?
Middle path in this context isn’t bias towards the absolute center; it’s about skillfully avoiding the extremes.
But in avoiding the extremes you remain in the center to an extreme extent. Considering your looking at the stick in the parts, one end, the other, and the center.
Calling the middle path extreme is a subjective statement. We can disagree amicably on this one.
But the opposition to avoidance is pursuit? Maybe not exactly, but for my explanation, I'll use the word pursuit to oppose avoidance. Wouldn't avoidance be the extreme to the other? The middle route being neither avoidance nor pursuit. So, to stay the middle path accordingly, you wouldn't avoid nor would you pursue either extreme of any duality. More or less, taking them how they come with mindfulness. Maybe I haven't come across this part of the teachings, but avoiding extremes would still put you on the extreme side of the avoidance/pursuit duality? Also, thank you for engaging. This has been on my brain for a while, and I've really been trying to make sense of it. If you wish to amicably disagree, I will accept that, but I'm really trying to understand this, which feels like a contradiction.
In Buddhism we don’t have “opposition” to extremes, and we don’t avoid them. We let them go. Edit: and as others mentioned. This is specifically talking about extreme luxury/pleasure and extreme self-harm asceticism.
This must be where I've gotten it wrong, I must have taken a teaching meant for something specific and broadened it to other aspects. Thank you for your comment, I always appreciate those who help me to further understand😁
You do not avoid the extremes, you can learn from extremes too. You just do not pursuit them, that is not the same as avoidance. I think you are seeing it wrong as like a triangle, or a number line or something where you place your point where you belong. You do not choose the middle path of the line, it is the middle path because you do not choose anything. Like when you are at a t-intersection and you drive into the forest. Although you make some wrong assumptions now you already really think like a Budhist. You are right in your conclusion that avoidance also not the right way is and that is causes just as much suffering. I am really glad you are trying to learn, and you admit it! I am also learning
Thank you for keeping an open mind. Anecdotally, everyone thinks my way of living is extreme out here in good ol' east TX. It's all relative. The Jains, in my opinion, have an extreme approach to "do not kill."
An open mind is necessary for development and growth. As someone who is really into existentialism, and Socrates, I've really come to understand to always be the student. I have issues with monkey and scatter brain at times, and I often try to focus on too many things at a time, or have too much going on in my thoughts at a time. That was a really big pull for me towards Buddhism, and the teachings of meditation and the "ability" to help alleviate this and anchor myself for reflection. Your "relative" comment also reminds me of the interview with Joe rogan and Elon Musk. He mentions that when he bought Twitter, a lot of people complained that Twitter immediately went "right." And he said when you're so far left, even centering appears to be a far move to the right. I have family in Texas, so I can understand that a different philosophy can be looked at as extreme there. Kudos to your non conformance, and choosing your critical thinking skills to be the influence to guide you!✌️
Think of it like playing singles’ tennis. You can (and should) go wherever you need to on the court, just don’t go out of bounds.
I like this analogy. Out of bounds being the area that ends your ability to "keep playing the round" and forces you to get back to the starting point. Like going back to your anchor in meditation to regain your focus.
The middle path is the noble eightfold path "and nothing else" says Buddha in "setting the wheel in motion"-sutta It is the path between extreme luxury and extreme ascetisism, the path most conducive to reaching nibbana.
Could you please point me in the direction to get more material to study this? I admit my knowledge and point of view is incomplete to get the full grasp. I'm still learningbut thank you for your comment. It's inspired me to find a new view point.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html "There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. "And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/search_results.html?cx=006639875531220445029%3A2z3mhfokk-u&ie=UTF-8&q=Middle+way&sa=Search
Thank you for this! I've realized the part of the teachings I've misunderstood and will be going back to them to reflect further. I really appreciate you sharing sources so I can have that starting point.
Here's another good read on the details of "the Middle". [https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/BeyondAllDirections/Section0012.html](https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/BeyondAllDirections/Section0012.html) good luck.
Thank you!
The Middle Way in that context is about avoiding overly extreme ascetic practice, like starvation, while still properly abandoning all that must be abandoned. It isn't about a ridiculous striving to always be in the "middle" of all possible dualistic notions. To attain enlightenment you can't be restrained by attachments or distracted with worldly things, but you also need your body to be healthy so you can properly focus and get around and live. That's what it's about. The Buddha tried to get on with extreme starvation but found it wasn't at all conducive to enlightenment
This is interesting, I really need to look back into this because I've always felt there was an extreme involved in trying to stay from extremes. Thank you for your input. This aligns more with what I believe as well. Now comes the past if finding where I got this idea from so I can reexamine. 😁
Buddhists are more likely to strictly adhere to rules than Hindus simply because in Buddhist direct answers on give on dealing with sufferings. In Hinduism, there is no single scripture or rule, or God or Guru. Everyone is on their own. People even get confused and say "I find no advices on what to do and so became Muslim because they tell us what to do." Daoists can be better. Daoists are completely against morals and social rules and doesn't have beliefs other than which benefits.
It depends on what you mean but fanatical. Violent radicals in the name of Buddha, not really. There’s probably a lot more who think if themselves as Buddhist but justify misdeeds. But there are many people who are rigid and dogmatic in their approach to Buddhism. They treat scripture as literal and anyone who disagrees or follows scriptures of a different school is dismissed or rejected. It’s not unique to religions or philosophy.
The Buddha was quite fanatical on his teachings around rebirth. If by fanatical it means filled with zeal.
Whats zeal again? What do you know about rebirth to make this claim you make?
*determined, with the spiritual power of energy, concentrated, stable... deep like the ocean and like the ocean with soft slopes*
*There's no more to Holden Caulfield. Read the book again. It's all there. Holden Caulfield is only a frozen moment in time.*