I always love the “No True Scotsman” syllogism but it isn’t apt in this circumstance for 4 reasons.
1) Ontological vs Existential.
When someone says “Scotsman” it represents a specific set of known criteria; born in Scotland, frugal, speaking some Scottish, etc. That applies to Christianity, Islam and Judaism that have a specific set of explicitly articulated beliefs (creeds) , have specific rites of initiation (sacraments) which results in being certified as a member of the religion.
The construct “I am a Buddhist” is misleading since there aren’t any objective criteria you cannot then ascribe to being one of them. The object of Buddhism can best be described as “Following the path of Dharma (truth)”. Arriving at the end of the path (Nirvana) is not possible so the religious discipline is the path not the destination.
Christians, Jews and Muslims have arrived at their destination and want to perfect their domicile in that city. “Buddhists” are on the train. The point of following the Buddha is not that he is the destination but that he is the most effective teacher. The construct “I am a Buddhist” is a courtesy to assist non Buddhists understanding what group you are associating with but doesn’t really reflect what “being a Buddhist” is about.
It is not an abstract application. For example, go to the latest posting in the Buddhism group it has an article about some old Buddhists in the 60s.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12491673
In the article it talks about Sufi and Zen master Samuel Lewis. Sufism is a form of mystical Islam. No one objects to someone that describes as a Sufi/Zen Buddhist but to describe yourself as a Sufi Christian or a Sufi Jew would be ridiculous.
After Jesus died there were multiple schools of followers who were loyal to his teachings and they morphed into two major schools, Gnostic and Trinitarians. They had a formal process and ruled Trinitarians in and Gnostics out. Today you can be, a) a follower of Christ b) a Christian or, c) both. If you follow the teachings of Jesus but don’t accept the Resurrection you would be a follower of Jesus but not a Christian. In the “no true Scotsman” framing there is something objective that is known as a “Scotsman”. Buddhism is a process that defies a neat objective description. Roughly it is the difference between an ontological concept and an existential one.
2) Being proud of being a “Buddhist” is antithetical to Buddhist teaching.
While the Buddhist disciple follows the path of Dharma there are obstacles and the greatest of these is pride. The whole point of Buddhist meditation and teaching is to reduce the “I”. Egotistical, national or sect pride is not simply to be avoided, it is the enemy. If you are “proud” to be a Buddhist then you are moving away from Dharma not towards it. In the “No true Scotsman” framing it would be asserting the someone from Ireland is more Scottish than a Scotsman. It is analogous to the famous koan “If you meet the Buddha kill him”
3) Not factual.
It promotes the fallacy that Islamic countries are more violent. The media distorts the reality of the Islamic world. The three largest Islamic countries are Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Most Muslims are Asians, there are more Muslims in China than Saudi Arabia. While there are well publicized wars between different groups in the middle East that is foreign to how most Muslims live.
Islam is a clan or community religion. In the secular state there is nothing to regulate behavior between individual ethics and law enforcement. In countries with large Islamic populations communities are controlled by informal clan structures that enforce strict moral codes (much of which we find objectionable) but includes restricting the wide use of alcohol. If you were to take guns and alcohol out of the hands of men between the ages of 15 and 35 I am guessing that the murder rate in the US would plummet. In many Islamic countries they achieve that and as a result have lower homicide rates than countries with large Buddhist populations.
When I lived in Malaysia or stayed in Indonesia there were virtually no murders. There was a murder 2 blocks from my home in Thailand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
If you look at countries that are in the same area and similar level of development you can see that countries with large Islamic populations have much lower homicide rates than countries with large Buddhist populations: Myanmar (15.4) Cambodia (6.5) Laos (5.9) Thailand (3,9) versus Malaysia (2.3) Brunei (2.0) or Indonesia (0.5 Probably underreported).
Obviously if something is not factual it cannot be in harmony with following the Dharma.
4) It is intolerant
Setting up pejorative examples is the basis of intolerance. What attracts me most to Buddhist teaching and living in a Buddhist country is the fresh wind of tolerance. When I arrived in Thailand in 1978 I took an intensive 3 month language course but I couldn’t understand broadcast programs on the radio or TV. About 3 months later I was eating breakfast in a rickety little restaurant when the radio turned to the daily Buddhist sermon and I was stunned because all of a sudden I could understand everything (the wide Monk was undoubtedly using simple Thai to reach all levels of education). He spent the next 5 months praising other religions. One example I still represent “We should learn more about Jesus because he has inspired so many good works. Look at all the hospitals in Thailand that have been built by Christians to treat Buddhists”
In the three decades of living with Buddhists I have never heard anyone ever disparage other religions. Thais are not the least defensive about their culture or religion. The OP isn’t simply stating pride in his religion but denigrating other religions. In the “No True Scotsman” construct it would be as if he were saying there is no such thing as a True Scotsman but there is such a thing as a “True Brit”.
What I think the OP was trying to say that is consistent with Buddhism:
“Communities of devout religious people who are tolerant, empathetic, compassionate are less violent than hostile, intolerant, angry communities. That would apply equally to a devout Mennonite community as it would a devout Theravada community. I am a Buddhist because it makes me a more tolerant, empathetic, compassionate person.”
I believe that the OP's response in #8 reflects that we share a common perspective on the subject.
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
= new reply since forum marked as read
:
