Buddhists are meant to be passive (Buddhism, Buddha, reincarnate, quote)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Buddhism isn't about being passive, it's about not being driven to activity by automatic impulses based on our conditioning".
That strikes me as a fair description, though I understand the ease with which it's possible to see Buddhist practice or misunderstand Buddhist teaching as being tantamount to passivity. "Letting go of attachments to particular outcomes" sounds, superficially, like not giving a fig; plus, if you're used to a rigid notion of how your life is "supposed" to unfold, anything other than at least an attempt at total control "feels" passive.
Personally I have come more in line with Buddhist concepts organically because as you age, you lose so much control and so many options are foreclosed, that you have to learn to be okay with life as it is rather than whatever idealized version was lodged in your noggin all along.
Or at least that is how I have it sorted for myself. I don't pretend to have mounted an exhaustive study of Buddhism. I have just always found its very basic teachings reasonable.
That strikes me as a fair description, though I understand the ease with which it's possible to see Buddhist practice or misunderstand Buddhist teaching as being tantamount to passivity. "Letting go of attachments to particular outcomes" sounds, superficially, like not giving a fig; plus, if you're used to a rigid notion of how your life is "supposed" to unfold, anything other than at least an attempt at total control "feels" passive.
Personally I have come more in line with Buddhist concepts organically because as you age, you lose so much control and so many options are foreclosed, that you have to learn to be okay with life as it is rather than whatever idealized version was lodged in your noggin all along.
Or at least that is how I have it sorted for myself. I don't pretend to have mounted an exhaustive study of Buddhism. I have just always found its very basic teachings reasonable.
Personally, one of the things that appeals to me about Buddhist is that is it far less about proving scriptural events than it is about considering moral principles.
Personally, one of the things that appeals to me about Buddhist is that is it far less about proving scriptural events than it is about considering moral principles.
Indeed, and that is what religion was, I thought, supposed to do -- consider morality, ethics, you now, little things like that, lol.
Indeed, and that is what religion was, I thought, supposed to do -- consider morality, ethics, you now, little things like that, lol.
I agree, but on this forum that's not what most posts are about. I started one thread to discuss just principles; it died a quick death. But it may be reincarnated!
So let me ask you -- did you originally struggle with acceptance = passivity and if so how did you reconcile it? It seems like a common enough concern, I've seen it pop up repeatedly over the years from Buddhist inquirers.
So let me ask you -- did you originally struggle with acceptance = passivity and if so how did you reconcile it? It seems like a common enough concern, I've seen it pop up repeatedly over the years from Buddhist inquirers.
I always struggled with passivity. As a child I was almost painfully shy. And yet, I always wanted to be a teacher. So I had to overcome that shyness. And, at the same time, in the mid to late 1960s I began realizing that minority groups would remain downtrodden unless they began being the very opposite of passive. The status quo always remains until someone forces change. In fact, interestingly, that exactly what Jesus and Buddha stood for -- a change in the status quo. Good teachers challenge status quo, good principals challenge status quo. So by the time I began transitioning into Buddhism, I was already one who was not attuned with passivity. And, looking at the culture and history of Thailand -- where I learned my Buddhism -- that very Buddhist country still exists because it has never accepted passivity.
Some might describe me as being contentious.
Some might describe certain other posters as being contentious.
the premise put forth in the opening post appears to not recognize or distinguish between "pacifist" and "passive." when an opening premise is flawed then the conclusions which follow from it also tend to be flawed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
