I was thinking about closet Buddhists the other day (my brother claims to be one as does his wife). From what I can gather closet Buddhists can either fall into the category of beginners and dabblers; or they might even be serious students who have no affiliation with any group or sect.
I am just guessing, but I suspect there are more closet Buddhists than people who have no problem saying they are Buddhists, at least in the West.
Somewhat related, when the Dalai Lama comes to Emory University (here in Atlanta), I get to see a lot of closet Buddhists who probably would never admit in public they are Buddhists. Needless to say, the Dalai Lama has quite a fan base. It’s always a packed house when I attend his lectures. It’s my one chance to experience the collective scent of closet Buddhists. Of course, the Dalai Lama never talks about the really deep stuff (he doesn’t want to upstage the professors I suppose). He comes across as sort of a spiritual comedian whose job is to make everyone feel okay about their precarious, samsaric lives.
Personally, I think being a closet Buddhist signals a huge transformation in our modern culture. To become an officially unrecognized closet Buddhist means that one is leaving the absurd religious values of the past. They are serious about looking deeply within. After all, that is where all the suffering seems to be coming from.
I have found closet Buddhists among my Jewish and Muslim friends both of whom have an amazing ability to dive deep within themselves (why Jews and Muslims are going toe to toe cannot be easily answered—but if they become closet Buddhists there will be peace between the faiths I am sure. Oh, I am such an optimist!).
I guess what I am trying to say is that I hope closet Buddhism becomes a super huge movement—unrecognized of course!
Very reasonable post, Bob.
Posted by: Kevin N. | April 26, 2012 at 03:55 PM
Nobody has mentioned the 100 million or so innocent people who were murdered in the establishment enforcement of the various 'dictatorships of the proletariat.' The [no-brainer] reason that USSR, China etc weren't truly Marxist is that it flat doesn't f-ing work. HHDL is dead wrong on this issue.
Posted by: Bob Morris | April 26, 2012 at 10:14 AM
Marx is to be directly blamed for what happened because he endorsed what he called "DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat" - as a phase between capitalism and what is to come (his bullshit utopia). - That requires central planning, and central planning equals maximum evil (Stalinist state).
On the other hand, the Austrian economists are perfectly blameless because their theories were never put into practice; we don't have anything like a libertarian state. And the closest we have to that are the states with the most prosperity and freedom! See the index of economic freedom and compare it to indexes of happiness and wealth.
All states known in history that applied Marxism ended in slavery, tyranny and hyper-inflation; everywhere Austrian ideas were applied, prosperity resulted. It's like comparing North Korea to Hong Kong.
Hayek demonstrated logically why centrally planned economies MUST result in mass slavery and totalitarianism. So Marxist "dictatorship of the proletariat" idea directly results in tyranny. It is because if a centrally planned economy fixes prices, the market has no orientation because, as Hayek perfectly demonstrated, prices are INFORMATION. An economical agent is left without orientation if a central agency fixes prices as a deus ex machina.
This can be proven in 100.000 ways and if one still stays a socialist after understanding these principles, one is either evil or retarded, or - most commonly - both.
I'm surprised that the writer of the Zennist fell for the Dalai Lama hoax. He even applauded the death of Osama Bin Laden. What a joke. - No trial, no evidence that he was responsible for 9/11. - Just bullet in the head and thrown into the Ocean. - And the Dalai Lama "condones it"? Yep, he's a Marxist all right. They always loved this style. - What about the precept against killing?
Stop endorsing that bald clown! Your blog is better than that.
Posted by: Kevin N. | April 24, 2012 at 04:20 PM
Kevin N. Maybe you are not aware of it but Marx was a big fan of the middle class. He considered it to be one of the most revolutionary events of history.
One final word, Marx was no more responsible for Lenin, Stalin and Mao than Darwin was responsible for Hitler. Nor are the Austrian economists responsible for large scale bureaucratic capitalism and the planned communities we call suburbia.
Posted by: kojizen | April 24, 2012 at 12:41 PM
Kevin, have you tried reading Marx using more than 3 brain cells? I doubt it.
If you do, maybe you will understand why you cant just dismiss the ideas of one of the most brilliant minds ever as "flawed".
but I agree with what you said about the Dalai Lama.
Posted by: dialectictranscendence | April 24, 2012 at 12:33 PM