Greetings with first thoughts on encountering the site
Greetings with first thoughts on encountering the site
I wanted to offer a collection of reactions to some of the material I have recently encountered from the TMM, Qinn’s exchange with the scientists, and a little forum lurking. First, I stumbled in here by first reading about Weiniger on a site hosted by a London-based ex-Israeli anti-Zionist who had some very intelligent observations about many things. I have been studying WW I and WW II and the whole Zionist history the past six weeks because I found the gap between rhetoric and reality in world affairs so wide and glaring that I felt it was time to learn a bit more. Anyway, in searching for a downloadable copy of Weiniger’s works, I blundered in here.
Some points:
1. Genius – a daring and fresh way of promoting Truth and Awareness and so forth. And no less daring to proclaim: ‘I am such a genius.†Immediately it raises the stakes in a discussion beyond the concepts alone.
2. Arrogance – there is clearly a self-aggrandising aspect to this. And yet, does it really matter? Although leery of this approach – and sometimes the tone – it is refreshing, and again raises the stakes, or makes the context more vivid.
3. Masculine certainty and confidence is a valuable thrust. Quinn’s projection embodies this and does so well. It seems a bit heavy-handed at times, relentless, elephantine. And yet it is valuable and consistently expressed. I found his interchange with the scientists extremely revealing, his ability to plough through emotive verbiage, not without evocative quips of his own, humour, jabs and so forth, and yet able to ride the (female) horse of emotive turbulence and obfuscation whilst keeping his (masculine) seat, maintaining mastery of the subject and overall context. The way the very irritated Mimi (?) littered all her post with *little feminine wiggles * and *gasps* interspersed with rather vacuous logic, then appealing to the group to back up her anger and reject this foreigner in their midst (rather than simply disengage from the discussion) was absolutely fascinating.
4. That said, throughout the site I find the emphasis on ‘woman’ a tad overblown, although it taps into a deep root. One thought I had skimming through one of the radio discussions about women, was that the subject (woman) is not the woman but the man, as in subject versus object, i.e. this is all about the masculine viewing ‘woman’, and not necessarily anything to do with ‘objective’ woman, or even women in general at all. So although he/we are not really talking about women in the literal sense necessarily, yet much of the material does not make this clear, or is expounded in ways that confuse mundane and philosophical observations. So that is a wobbly bit.
5. Philosophy per se can be abstract unless lived as such, which Quinn seems to be doing, and a presence of that comes through on the page and in his book. Furthermore, there is an invitation on the website and the forum especially to engage in it as a process, or practice. I am not sure if all the discussions are achieving this, but I certainly applaud the effort. Whether I can participate helpfully in this or not remains to be seen.
6. Personally, I would love to be exposed to more deconstructive dialectic so that I can begin to live the madhyamika notion of emptiness better. I have studied Buddhism off and on since the 1970’s, trained with a well-known teacher, but did not keep studying after a certain point so lack training in certain aspects. At the same time, I have chosen to distance myself from the organised situation and am now in a more auto-didactive mode. I find much of Quinn’s statements and manner quite worthy and suspect he has much to offer in this type of back and forth.
7. Both on this forum – skimming through – and in one other forum that I was on for a while, and thanks to the emphasis on the ‘masculine’ approach I just picked up from Q here, it is fascinating how difficult it is for people to identify a clear issue or point that is of any worth, and then stick with it and follow through with a dialectic process. Most of the time, things degenerate rapidly into ‘female’ discursiveness and rapidly from there to ‘marital’ rows. Fascinating, but seriously important; this is how our own ignorance self-perpetuates, both personally and in terms of endless war and indignity in the public sphere.
8. In my recent studies of Western history, I began to delve into the infamous holocaust and all that. Without getting into any of those issues at all, it is clear that part of its power (and it is by no means the first such thing to dominate political consciousness by being such a powerful story) and yet that power is essentially that of horror, hysteria, anger, guilt, shame and so forth. So the entire affair, including what is unfolding in the ME right now in Israel especially, represents a sort of climax of ‘female’ neurosis in the world body politic, whose nose is being dragged around by a ring of hysteria. This is demonstrated by the fact that it is simply impossible for either leaders or journalists or forumites to discuss the dynamic without falling into the trap of hyberbolic (i.e. hysterical) emotion. This was just mentioned as an example, certainly not as an invitation to discuss the issue per se, an example of how deep-rooted the masculine-feminine dynamic as put forth by Quinn can be.
Well, I realise this is probably too long and also overly disjointed structurally, but I felt inspired to offer something after reading so much from all of you, and yet did not find any thread of interest particularly.
Underneath, this is a call for some of the sort of dialectic evidenced on the science-debate-fracas elsewhere on the site.
Some suggestions:
deconstructing the notion of self, as well as the various contexts in which it can be examined and which therefore might change the terms of reference.
The role of confidence-certainty in the genius process, which introduces the path aspect versus view alone (to use Buddhist terminology).
When the trumpet of wisdom is sounded – as several of you here are doing – what is heard, or, does anybody respond to its call?
Some points:
1. Genius – a daring and fresh way of promoting Truth and Awareness and so forth. And no less daring to proclaim: ‘I am such a genius.†Immediately it raises the stakes in a discussion beyond the concepts alone.
2. Arrogance – there is clearly a self-aggrandising aspect to this. And yet, does it really matter? Although leery of this approach – and sometimes the tone – it is refreshing, and again raises the stakes, or makes the context more vivid.
3. Masculine certainty and confidence is a valuable thrust. Quinn’s projection embodies this and does so well. It seems a bit heavy-handed at times, relentless, elephantine. And yet it is valuable and consistently expressed. I found his interchange with the scientists extremely revealing, his ability to plough through emotive verbiage, not without evocative quips of his own, humour, jabs and so forth, and yet able to ride the (female) horse of emotive turbulence and obfuscation whilst keeping his (masculine) seat, maintaining mastery of the subject and overall context. The way the very irritated Mimi (?) littered all her post with *little feminine wiggles * and *gasps* interspersed with rather vacuous logic, then appealing to the group to back up her anger and reject this foreigner in their midst (rather than simply disengage from the discussion) was absolutely fascinating.
4. That said, throughout the site I find the emphasis on ‘woman’ a tad overblown, although it taps into a deep root. One thought I had skimming through one of the radio discussions about women, was that the subject (woman) is not the woman but the man, as in subject versus object, i.e. this is all about the masculine viewing ‘woman’, and not necessarily anything to do with ‘objective’ woman, or even women in general at all. So although he/we are not really talking about women in the literal sense necessarily, yet much of the material does not make this clear, or is expounded in ways that confuse mundane and philosophical observations. So that is a wobbly bit.
5. Philosophy per se can be abstract unless lived as such, which Quinn seems to be doing, and a presence of that comes through on the page and in his book. Furthermore, there is an invitation on the website and the forum especially to engage in it as a process, or practice. I am not sure if all the discussions are achieving this, but I certainly applaud the effort. Whether I can participate helpfully in this or not remains to be seen.
6. Personally, I would love to be exposed to more deconstructive dialectic so that I can begin to live the madhyamika notion of emptiness better. I have studied Buddhism off and on since the 1970’s, trained with a well-known teacher, but did not keep studying after a certain point so lack training in certain aspects. At the same time, I have chosen to distance myself from the organised situation and am now in a more auto-didactive mode. I find much of Quinn’s statements and manner quite worthy and suspect he has much to offer in this type of back and forth.
7. Both on this forum – skimming through – and in one other forum that I was on for a while, and thanks to the emphasis on the ‘masculine’ approach I just picked up from Q here, it is fascinating how difficult it is for people to identify a clear issue or point that is of any worth, and then stick with it and follow through with a dialectic process. Most of the time, things degenerate rapidly into ‘female’ discursiveness and rapidly from there to ‘marital’ rows. Fascinating, but seriously important; this is how our own ignorance self-perpetuates, both personally and in terms of endless war and indignity in the public sphere.
8. In my recent studies of Western history, I began to delve into the infamous holocaust and all that. Without getting into any of those issues at all, it is clear that part of its power (and it is by no means the first such thing to dominate political consciousness by being such a powerful story) and yet that power is essentially that of horror, hysteria, anger, guilt, shame and so forth. So the entire affair, including what is unfolding in the ME right now in Israel especially, represents a sort of climax of ‘female’ neurosis in the world body politic, whose nose is being dragged around by a ring of hysteria. This is demonstrated by the fact that it is simply impossible for either leaders or journalists or forumites to discuss the dynamic without falling into the trap of hyberbolic (i.e. hysterical) emotion. This was just mentioned as an example, certainly not as an invitation to discuss the issue per se, an example of how deep-rooted the masculine-feminine dynamic as put forth by Quinn can be.
Well, I realise this is probably too long and also overly disjointed structurally, but I felt inspired to offer something after reading so much from all of you, and yet did not find any thread of interest particularly.
Underneath, this is a call for some of the sort of dialectic evidenced on the science-debate-fracas elsewhere on the site.
Some suggestions:
deconstructing the notion of self, as well as the various contexts in which it can be examined and which therefore might change the terms of reference.
The role of confidence-certainty in the genius process, which introduces the path aspect versus view alone (to use Buddhist terminology).
When the trumpet of wisdom is sounded – as several of you here are doing – what is heard, or, does anybody respond to its call?
Tharpa,
You seem smart. Welcome to the board. Your suggestions...
Someone can't just think "I am not real", because the thought itself is supported by the delusion. They unconsciously think, "I am thinking this thought" during that thought...thus, despite whatever the truth of the thought, the delusion remains. The delusion is "the ego".
So to uproot this ego isn't merely a thinking game, it's a changing of your identity and awareness game. This is where everyone falls away, and goes on to talk about Zionist movements, women, their personal lives, etc. Of course, everyone fears the loss of themselves and their intelligence, especially if it's as built up as everyone's here ("I am a great thinker, I am so smart")...but without losing these things, no philosopher can be truly considered enlightened....because these things are pure falsehood. It's just hard to see because they aren't conscious thoughts...they're the building blocks of conscious thoughts.
Of course a person must walk the path, not just look at it or talk about it. And of course, being uncertain is worth nothing in philosophy. Philosophy should be like a sharp knife, cutting through falseness with ease. One must have the confidence to lose everything for enlightenment. To have the confidence to use philosophy correctly...with certainty, rather than dullness.
But seriously, when truth is spoken, the people that are motivated to understand are the ones that attain understanding. I'm sure people here think they understand, but the fact is that they don't yet...thus they have no motivation, thinking they've attained the goal. They're stuck. The ones that are closest to true understanding are the ones that know they don't truly understand...the honest people, who truly care about "getting it". Throwing their hands up in the air, in ignorance, isn't the trick...the trick is to honestly seek the absolute truth in everything and in every moment.
To seek a perfect awareness of the truth (absolutely no delusion)...not just an understanding of what others have found to be true.
The ones that seek this respond to the trumpet's call. The ones that don't are probably too loud to hear the trumpet.
You seem smart. Welcome to the board. Your suggestions...
A good suggestion. This isn't just a philosophical game, in order to attain more knowledge, though. It's seeing through the root of delusion, in order to perfect your awareness of the truth...so of course like you said, it'll change the terms of reference.deconstructing the notion of self, as well as the various contexts in which it can be examined and which therefore might change the terms of reference.
Someone can't just think "I am not real", because the thought itself is supported by the delusion. They unconsciously think, "I am thinking this thought" during that thought...thus, despite whatever the truth of the thought, the delusion remains. The delusion is "the ego".
So to uproot this ego isn't merely a thinking game, it's a changing of your identity and awareness game. This is where everyone falls away, and goes on to talk about Zionist movements, women, their personal lives, etc. Of course, everyone fears the loss of themselves and their intelligence, especially if it's as built up as everyone's here ("I am a great thinker, I am so smart")...but without losing these things, no philosopher can be truly considered enlightened....because these things are pure falsehood. It's just hard to see because they aren't conscious thoughts...they're the building blocks of conscious thoughts.
Care to explain what this means more?The role of confidence-certainty in the genius process, which introduces the path aspect versus view alone (to use Buddhist terminology).
Of course a person must walk the path, not just look at it or talk about it. And of course, being uncertain is worth nothing in philosophy. Philosophy should be like a sharp knife, cutting through falseness with ease. One must have the confidence to lose everything for enlightenment. To have the confidence to use philosophy correctly...with certainty, rather than dullness.
What is heard when the trumpet of wisdom sounds? A bunch of people talking loud, as to drown out the trumpet. Does anybody respond to its call? People try, but it's hard to understand what a trumpet is saying....most people here speak English.When the trumpet of wisdom is sounded – as several of you here are doing – what is heard, or, does anybody respond to its call?
But seriously, when truth is spoken, the people that are motivated to understand are the ones that attain understanding. I'm sure people here think they understand, but the fact is that they don't yet...thus they have no motivation, thinking they've attained the goal. They're stuck. The ones that are closest to true understanding are the ones that know they don't truly understand...the honest people, who truly care about "getting it". Throwing their hands up in the air, in ignorance, isn't the trick...the trick is to honestly seek the absolute truth in everything and in every moment.
To seek a perfect awareness of the truth (absolutely no delusion)...not just an understanding of what others have found to be true.
The ones that seek this respond to the trumpet's call. The ones that don't are probably too loud to hear the trumpet.
- Scott
Tharpa wrote;
Another Welcome, Tharpa.
The one who is…When the trumpet of wisdom is sounded – as several of you here are doing – what is heard, or, does anybody respond to its call?
…does not necessarily really bother about the out come nor the result of his “trumpeting†of wisdom. He leaves it to causality. In fact, he is actually “trumpeting†nothing at all in that regard, except being caused to do what he does, through a particularly caused mind-set, and “he†is absolutely aware of his own casually created moment in awareness.…able to ride the (female) horse of emotive turbulence and obfuscation whilst keeping his (masculine) seat, … [well put]
Another Welcome, Tharpa.
---------
SS:
Of course a person must walk the path, not just look at it or talk about it. And of course, being uncertain is worth nothing in philosophy. Philosophy should be like a sharp knife, cutting through falseness with ease. One must have the confidence to lose everything for enlightenment. To have the confidence to use philosophy correctly...with certainty, rather than dullness.
Answer: I thought you did a rather good job there! There was a natural threefold progression in my rather hastily offered example topics along the lines of:
First type: a particular thingy, in this case ‘what is self’, or whatever.
Second: a path aspect. For example, the process involved in developing/being ‘a genius’ or ‘philosopher’ is more than just a particular thingy, it’s a way of being. So there can be discussions about this process/path aspect versus definitional clarifications alone, even though as you pointed out the process of ascertaining such clarities is itself a process.
The trumpet business was a hint, or lead-in, into some sort of result, or fruition notion, which in this case suggested a compassion principle of sorts, i.e. radiation to the world. Strangely enough, when one sheds the costumes of ego and stands forth naked and alone, this is a very public affair, ripples emanating forth from the single pebble dropped in the lake of awareness, if you will.
As I transmitted that first post I realised that it was no good, really, in the sense that it was just somebody babbling away because there was no clear subject offered. But perhaps we can regard it as preliminary chit-chat, or shaking of hands….
Thanks for your welcome. I do not know how much or how often I shall participate here, but I intend to use it as a way to process and reflect the writings of the hosts and hopefully avoid unnecessary brouhahas, unless they are part of a worthwhile ‘deconstruction’ process. A test of masculinity, eh?
PS I really don't understand all the quote systems etc. so forgive me if I botched 'em.
Care to explain what this means more?The role of confidence-certainty in the genius process, which introduces the path aspect versus view alone (to use Buddhist terminology).
Of course a person must walk the path, not just look at it or talk about it. And of course, being uncertain is worth nothing in philosophy. Philosophy should be like a sharp knife, cutting through falseness with ease. One must have the confidence to lose everything for enlightenment. To have the confidence to use philosophy correctly...with certainty, rather than dullness.
Answer: I thought you did a rather good job there! There was a natural threefold progression in my rather hastily offered example topics along the lines of:
First type: a particular thingy, in this case ‘what is self’, or whatever.
Second: a path aspect. For example, the process involved in developing/being ‘a genius’ or ‘philosopher’ is more than just a particular thingy, it’s a way of being. So there can be discussions about this process/path aspect versus definitional clarifications alone, even though as you pointed out the process of ascertaining such clarities is itself a process.
The trumpet business was a hint, or lead-in, into some sort of result, or fruition notion, which in this case suggested a compassion principle of sorts, i.e. radiation to the world. Strangely enough, when one sheds the costumes of ego and stands forth naked and alone, this is a very public affair, ripples emanating forth from the single pebble dropped in the lake of awareness, if you will.
As I transmitted that first post I realised that it was no good, really, in the sense that it was just somebody babbling away because there was no clear subject offered. But perhaps we can regard it as preliminary chit-chat, or shaking of hands….
Thanks for your welcome. I do not know how much or how often I shall participate here, but I intend to use it as a way to process and reflect the writings of the hosts and hopefully avoid unnecessary brouhahas, unless they are part of a worthwhile ‘deconstruction’ process. A test of masculinity, eh?
PS I really don't understand all the quote systems etc. so forgive me if I botched 'em.
If Wis of Inf is Quinn's book, then I have skimmed it, along with some of the Thinking website. (I am in the library right now without my usual computer so I lack easy references to the materials and cannot be bothered to be more precise, so forgive me if this is not the book.)
I intend to revisit the Quinn book over the weekend and go through more slowly. Of course, most of the material is something you can spend lifetimes on, root texts as some call them. I am unfamiliar with Nietsche and so forth and look forward to getting into them more.
I am not yet satisfied with the discussion on masculine and feminine but I agree it is a schlussel-punkt dynamic and appreciate the way it is front and centre in the contextual architecture of the GENIUS situation.
But his introduction of Genius as a state of being and motivation, rather than simply a function of IQ, was excellent, putting the entire issue not only in a novel fashion, but also right in the middle of the western context, without any need to reference Indian, Chinese or other 'mystical' sources. Very well done. Also, as I mentioned earlier, he clearly identifies it as far more than philosophy or intellectualism. His Philosophy is something more specific, as is Genius, or the Masculine, which is why I used caps. They are terms he is using in his own unique way, so of course one must first read the materials before discussing too much, otherwise everything is at cross purposes.
In any case, his manifestation comes off as a strong gesture, a real action, not intellectual babbling alone. What one can achieve in a cyber-discussion remains to be seen. My suspicion is very little. However, that is the medium with which I encountered the work, and so that is where it is thus far.
In any case, I agree: discussing things that arise from contemplating the 'root texts' of this forum is what 'everything here' should be about. And that is an excellent starting point.
I intend to revisit the Quinn book over the weekend and go through more slowly. Of course, most of the material is something you can spend lifetimes on, root texts as some call them. I am unfamiliar with Nietsche and so forth and look forward to getting into them more.
I am not yet satisfied with the discussion on masculine and feminine but I agree it is a schlussel-punkt dynamic and appreciate the way it is front and centre in the contextual architecture of the GENIUS situation.
But his introduction of Genius as a state of being and motivation, rather than simply a function of IQ, was excellent, putting the entire issue not only in a novel fashion, but also right in the middle of the western context, without any need to reference Indian, Chinese or other 'mystical' sources. Very well done. Also, as I mentioned earlier, he clearly identifies it as far more than philosophy or intellectualism. His Philosophy is something more specific, as is Genius, or the Masculine, which is why I used caps. They are terms he is using in his own unique way, so of course one must first read the materials before discussing too much, otherwise everything is at cross purposes.
In any case, his manifestation comes off as a strong gesture, a real action, not intellectual babbling alone. What one can achieve in a cyber-discussion remains to be seen. My suspicion is very little. However, that is the medium with which I encountered the work, and so that is where it is thus far.
In any case, I agree: discussing things that arise from contemplating the 'root texts' of this forum is what 'everything here' should be about. And that is an excellent starting point.
quibble
SS, this admittedly is a quibble, rather than an appraisal of the whole thing, which I have not quite finished. I was confusing this one in the library with another one containing a selection of various sources.
From Chapter Four 'Being Judgmental':
"He was also, it should be noted, the beneficiary of a lot of good luck as well - for example, having the kind of early life experiences that build character instead of crushing it; hearing a chance word from another which triggers a life-changing insight in his mind; meeting a wise mentor at just the right time of his life; having none of his genes mutate in a life-threatening or debilitating way, and so on. Thus, we can see that a person’s destiny is as much determined by luck as it is by his karma.
This is where the more specialized conception of karma, as favoured by Buddhists, breaks down. Buddhists are living in a dream world if they think that the whole of human behaviour is solely the result of choices and personal karma. In reality, Nature is an infinitely complex and messy affair, which makes it impossible to truly isolate a realm of existence from everything else. A person’s mental and spiritual development is affected by countless factors, only some of which stem from the choices he has made as an individual. Like most other religious people, Buddhists are trying to escape reality by immersing themselves in a simplified conceptual realm, one that has their own egos firmly planted in centre-stage. "
Well, ignoring the cheap comments about 'buddhists' which is an impossible generalisation to make, I find the sudden introduction of 'luck' to the causation equation a sudden flaw in what until then was rather seamless, delightful unflowering of excellent logic and insight. I shall keep a list of questions such as this and start a thread on them or something, but I can't find anything in what he wrote to explain this sudden 'big bang' interloper, aka chance.
On the other hand, it is true that the laws of karma, so to speak, are not easily discernible, i.e. we don't inhabit a simplistic billiard ball universe making it easy to predict anything that will arise the next moment. Nevertheless, I feel that he threw out causality with this statement in order to offer a criticism of buddhism. If he was criticising buddhists who lean on the crutch of identifying with their personas as 'buddhist', that would be fair. But it has nothing to do with the notion of karma per se, and in any case he never bothered to define it clearly.
In terms of definition, the simplest quick one in our context here would be the notion of interdependent causality which he explains brilliantly.
In terms of process, and he mentions the emotional aspect of karma later on this section, it was well described as the baggage which we carry from the past moment into the present, which is therefore formed by what we are carrying. This moment is shaped by the emotive architecture we bring with us into the new birth. If our attitude is hostile this moment, then the next moment unfolds as a universe containing threat. If we respond to this threat, we perpetuate that realm, i.e. a 'reborn' therein as he also well points out.
True liberation (the meaning of tharpa by the way) involves transcending such karma altogether - both 'good' and 'bad' which ultimately are the same - whilst remaining within the realm of interdependent causation as all living beings must do.
Although all the ins and outs of karma cannot be perceived by all except a full Buddha (supposedly), this is not the same as 'luck'. So by introducing luck, he departed from his hitherto impeccable stream of logic and insight.
imho.
From Chapter Four 'Being Judgmental':
"He was also, it should be noted, the beneficiary of a lot of good luck as well - for example, having the kind of early life experiences that build character instead of crushing it; hearing a chance word from another which triggers a life-changing insight in his mind; meeting a wise mentor at just the right time of his life; having none of his genes mutate in a life-threatening or debilitating way, and so on. Thus, we can see that a person’s destiny is as much determined by luck as it is by his karma.
This is where the more specialized conception of karma, as favoured by Buddhists, breaks down. Buddhists are living in a dream world if they think that the whole of human behaviour is solely the result of choices and personal karma. In reality, Nature is an infinitely complex and messy affair, which makes it impossible to truly isolate a realm of existence from everything else. A person’s mental and spiritual development is affected by countless factors, only some of which stem from the choices he has made as an individual. Like most other religious people, Buddhists are trying to escape reality by immersing themselves in a simplified conceptual realm, one that has their own egos firmly planted in centre-stage. "
Well, ignoring the cheap comments about 'buddhists' which is an impossible generalisation to make, I find the sudden introduction of 'luck' to the causation equation a sudden flaw in what until then was rather seamless, delightful unflowering of excellent logic and insight. I shall keep a list of questions such as this and start a thread on them or something, but I can't find anything in what he wrote to explain this sudden 'big bang' interloper, aka chance.
On the other hand, it is true that the laws of karma, so to speak, are not easily discernible, i.e. we don't inhabit a simplistic billiard ball universe making it easy to predict anything that will arise the next moment. Nevertheless, I feel that he threw out causality with this statement in order to offer a criticism of buddhism. If he was criticising buddhists who lean on the crutch of identifying with their personas as 'buddhist', that would be fair. But it has nothing to do with the notion of karma per se, and in any case he never bothered to define it clearly.
In terms of definition, the simplest quick one in our context here would be the notion of interdependent causality which he explains brilliantly.
In terms of process, and he mentions the emotional aspect of karma later on this section, it was well described as the baggage which we carry from the past moment into the present, which is therefore formed by what we are carrying. This moment is shaped by the emotive architecture we bring with us into the new birth. If our attitude is hostile this moment, then the next moment unfolds as a universe containing threat. If we respond to this threat, we perpetuate that realm, i.e. a 'reborn' therein as he also well points out.
True liberation (the meaning of tharpa by the way) involves transcending such karma altogether - both 'good' and 'bad' which ultimately are the same - whilst remaining within the realm of interdependent causation as all living beings must do.
Although all the ins and outs of karma cannot be perceived by all except a full Buddha (supposedly), this is not the same as 'luck'. So by introducing luck, he departed from his hitherto impeccable stream of logic and insight.
imho.
For a geat inkblot experience try this:
http://www.jacksonpollock.org/
Friend sent me this today... neat...
http://www.jacksonpollock.org/
Friend sent me this today... neat...
Re: quibble
He didn't mean luck as in pure chance that something good happened to him. It's actually saying the very opposite. Showing how he knows he's a only a result of the casual cycle of cause and effect, for better or worse. Obviously he feels like he got the former of the two. By calling it luck it's just stating that he has no control over the process of cause and effect. We are all a victim of circumstances, some of us better circumstances than others. Circumstances which were completely out of our hands. Just another way of saying he's been fortunate. Everything is already destined to happen, but is completely uknowable. We just go along for the ride...tharpa wrote:Although all the ins and outs of karma cannot be perceived by all except a full Buddha (supposedly), this is not the same as 'luck'. So by introducing luck, he departed from his hitherto impeccable stream of logic and insight.
imho.
""He was also, it should be noted, the beneficiary of a lot of good luck as well - for example, having the kind of early life experiences that build character instead of crushing it; hearing a chance word from another which triggers a life-changing insight in his mind; meeting a wise mentor at just the right time of his life; having none of his genes mutate in a life-threatening or debilitating way, and so on. Thus, we can see that a person’s destiny is as much determined by luck as it is by his karma.
This is where the more specialized conception of karma, as favoured by Buddhists, breaks down. Buddhists are living in a dream world if they think that the whole of human behaviour is solely the result of choices and personal karma. In reality, Nature is an infinitely complex and messy affair, which makes it impossible to truly isolate a realm of existence from everything else. A person’s mental and spiritual development is affected by countless factors, only some of which stem from the choices he has made as an individual. Like most other religious people, Buddhists are trying to escape reality by immersing themselves in a simplified conceptual realm, one that has their own egos firmly planted in centre-stage. "
That sounds to me like he IS saying that a certain amount of pure chance is involved, not simply that we cannot fathom all the workings of cause and effect. I agree that there is much more going on than our personal choices, but there is much more going on in that I am a human being with a capacity to do things far beyond my ability to explain them, i.e. thinking, smelling, tasting. This does not mean that such faculties are purely the result of chance, nor that this is replicated as chance for the billions of other humans around me who share more or less identical faculties.
I can no more explain how it is that I can see, than I can explain how I bumped into Person X on the street, a total stranger, stumbled the edge of the pavement, twisted my ankle in falling, and then fell into the path of a passing bus, there to have my skull crushed and life terminated, all in the space of three seconds.
That many of the workings of a causal universe are unfathomable, and hence mysterious in a sense, that seems clear. And if one wants to call that luck, or good fortune, then fair enough. But his real argument was to make a point about buddhists in general which departed from his usual style of remaining focused and clear in his logic. This is just an unsubstantiated generalisation having no basis in the formal buddhist philosophy necessarily. Of course most buddhists puts themselves in the centre state of life, a drama centred on Me, but that is the human condition for 99.9% of us, unavoidable really, and the condition to be overcome, if you will.
It is not a big deal, but the juxtaposition of the vague, critical generalisation and the fuzzy anti-causal logic of 'luck' broke the continuity of that Chapter (4) - at least for me.
This is where the more specialized conception of karma, as favoured by Buddhists, breaks down. Buddhists are living in a dream world if they think that the whole of human behaviour is solely the result of choices and personal karma. In reality, Nature is an infinitely complex and messy affair, which makes it impossible to truly isolate a realm of existence from everything else. A person’s mental and spiritual development is affected by countless factors, only some of which stem from the choices he has made as an individual. Like most other religious people, Buddhists are trying to escape reality by immersing themselves in a simplified conceptual realm, one that has their own egos firmly planted in centre-stage. "
That sounds to me like he IS saying that a certain amount of pure chance is involved, not simply that we cannot fathom all the workings of cause and effect. I agree that there is much more going on than our personal choices, but there is much more going on in that I am a human being with a capacity to do things far beyond my ability to explain them, i.e. thinking, smelling, tasting. This does not mean that such faculties are purely the result of chance, nor that this is replicated as chance for the billions of other humans around me who share more or less identical faculties.
I can no more explain how it is that I can see, than I can explain how I bumped into Person X on the street, a total stranger, stumbled the edge of the pavement, twisted my ankle in falling, and then fell into the path of a passing bus, there to have my skull crushed and life terminated, all in the space of three seconds.
That many of the workings of a causal universe are unfathomable, and hence mysterious in a sense, that seems clear. And if one wants to call that luck, or good fortune, then fair enough. But his real argument was to make a point about buddhists in general which departed from his usual style of remaining focused and clear in his logic. This is just an unsubstantiated generalisation having no basis in the formal buddhist philosophy necessarily. Of course most buddhists puts themselves in the centre state of life, a drama centred on Me, but that is the human condition for 99.9% of us, unavoidable really, and the condition to be overcome, if you will.
It is not a big deal, but the juxtaposition of the vague, critical generalisation and the fuzzy anti-causal logic of 'luck' broke the continuity of that Chapter (4) - at least for me.
"He's just pointing out that Bhuddists are arrogant enough to think that they alone control their destiny."
Well, if he is saying that about all buddhists and/or that the overall tradition espouses a view which obviously contradicts egolessness and emptiness, i.e. an eternalist or extreme view, this is a mistaken generalisation. I don't know how many buddhists Quinn has met, but there are quite a few in the world; certainly many of the excellent sources he cites, including Nagarjuna for example, who would not espouse such a view.
That some individual buddhists - as well as many others - might feel this way is no doubt true, but probably no more or less than most people mired in a samsaric state of mind.
That said, after thinking about it some more, 'luck' is as good a term as any to explain the mysterious workings of the world and our destiny therein, which is certainly is 'beyond control'. As my teacher used to say: 'the phenominal world is foxy and will get you every time!'
It reminds me of the situation of a man facing a firing squad. He cannot control whether or not the shots will be fired and his death result a few moments from now, but he does have some ability to 'control' how he meets that end. Naturally, the range of options open to such a man depend upon how he has lived up to that point. If he has been consistently a coward up to then, it is unlikely that he will be able to muster fearlessness at such a moment. But in any case, he still has several options in terms of how he meets that fate, even though he cannot control the final outcome per se.
Well, if he is saying that about all buddhists and/or that the overall tradition espouses a view which obviously contradicts egolessness and emptiness, i.e. an eternalist or extreme view, this is a mistaken generalisation. I don't know how many buddhists Quinn has met, but there are quite a few in the world; certainly many of the excellent sources he cites, including Nagarjuna for example, who would not espouse such a view.
That some individual buddhists - as well as many others - might feel this way is no doubt true, but probably no more or less than most people mired in a samsaric state of mind.
That said, after thinking about it some more, 'luck' is as good a term as any to explain the mysterious workings of the world and our destiny therein, which is certainly is 'beyond control'. As my teacher used to say: 'the phenominal world is foxy and will get you every time!'
It reminds me of the situation of a man facing a firing squad. He cannot control whether or not the shots will be fired and his death result a few moments from now, but he does have some ability to 'control' how he meets that end. Naturally, the range of options open to such a man depend upon how he has lived up to that point. If he has been consistently a coward up to then, it is unlikely that he will be able to muster fearlessness at such a moment. But in any case, he still has several options in terms of how he meets that fate, even though he cannot control the final outcome per se.
If it's true, and I'm pretty sure it is, that the traditional Bhuddist belief of reincarnation states they will literally be reincarnated into a "higher or lower being" after they die, based soley on what they feel is their own decisions in life. Then isn't that a from of ignorance? I actually call it a form of arrogance because they somehow think they are above God/Tao. It's the same thing as Christians believe, if they are good people they will go to heaven. Isn't everyone a good person in their own mind?tharpa wrote:Well, if he is saying that about all buddhists and/or that the overall tradition espouses a view which obviously contradicts egolessness and emptiness, i.e. an eternalist or extreme view, this is a mistaken generalisation. I don't know how many buddhists Quinn has met, but there are quite a few in the world; certainly many of the excellent sources he cites, including Nagarjuna for example, who would not espouse such a view.
Sure their have been Bhuddas who have gone beyond this and understood the true meanings of these teachings. Just like their have been Christians who truly understood the teachings of Jesus. The fact is that most mis-interpret the teachings of these wise men. There is a huge difference between the common Christian/Bhuddist, and the true Christian/Bhuddist. Actually the true Christian and Bhuddist are one in the same. Why do you think common Christianity and Bhuddism seem so different? Obviously they have went astray from their intended purpose.
If there is no ego, who are what gets reincarnated? Actually, the buddhist doctrine is not about 'reincarnation' of a permanent soul, since everything that arises exists only as a composite of interdependent causality. Perhaps you are not aware that everything Quinn lays out in terms of logic comes almost directly from the buddhist tradition? Personally, I find it an excellent presentation but there was hardly a single thing there that disagreed in any way with classic buddhist abhidharma. The usual term in buddhist english is not 'reincarnation', in any case, but 'rebirth', which happens moment to moment, each previous moment providing the causal basis of the next. Just as there is no solid ego in the present moment, so there is none that gets 'reincarnated'.Nick wrote:If it's true, and I'm pretty sure it is, that the traditional Bhuddist belief of reincarnation states they will literally be reincarnated into a "higher or lower being" after they die, based soley on what they feel is their own decisions in life. Then isn't that a from of ignorance? I actually call it a form of arrogance because they somehow think they are above God/Tao.tharpa wrote:Well, if he is saying that about all buddhists and/or that the overall tradition espouses a view which obviously contradicts egolessness and emptiness, i.e. an eternalist or extreme view, this is a mistaken generalisation. I don't know how many buddhists Quinn has met, but there are quite a few in the world; certainly many of the excellent sources he cites, including Nagarjuna for example, who would not espouse such a view.
This is a very strange statement, for it is 'the Buddhas' who gave such teachings.Sure their have been Buddhas who have gone beyond this and understood the true meanings of these teachings.
You might be right about common and 'true' followers, but this has nothing to do with either tradition, nor was it Quinn's point. Unless you are claiming that the entire buddhist tradition has lost the way. But if you are making such a point, you should provide more evidence. It's a rather sweeping claim!...The fact is that most mis-interpret the teachings of these wise men. There is a huge difference between the common Christian/Bhuddist, and the true Christian/Bhuddist. Actually the true Christian and Bhuddist are one in the same.
Also, since one tradition believes in an external god and his son who provide salvation for your sins no matter what you do as long as you 'believe', and the other tradition does not believe in any external agent of salvation and indeed 'believes' that any 'belief' is an extreme view and therefore fallacious, and that the law of karma, aka cause and effect, is unavoidable no matter what, it is hard to say they are the same. I am sure an enlightened 'Christian' is the same as an enlightened 'Buddhist' but at the point of enlightenment, there is no Christian or Buddhist really.
Again, since they are entirely different traditions, it is hard to say. That said, I suspect that original Christianity is very different from post-Constaninian Christianity. Indeed, there is rather convincing evidence that the main NT gospels are translations into Hebrew of Greek translations of certain classic buddhist texts. If you look at the JesusisBuddha site, some of what that scholar writes is quite convincing. In any case, the organised tradition seems to have little in common with the spirit of the gospels, which in any case offer a very minimal basis for a spiritual tradition. There must have been more underneath the whole thing originally, but if so it was obscured long ago.Why do you think common Christianity and Bhuddism seem so different? Obviously they have went astray from their intended purpose.
Also, I disagree that buddhism has strayed from its purpose. There are many vibrant traditions who maintain what they have received, and the teachings and practices continued to be transmitted. If you have any evidence to the contrary, then present it. Otherwise, I can only regard this as an unsubstantiated generalisation.
By the way, I have no desire to present myself here as a buddhist apologist necessarily, nor to I believe the many different schools and traditions, let alone various individuals included therein including myself, are beyond criticism or faultless. However, in response to such generalisations, and since they differ from my own experiences and general knowledge of the topic, with which I have some familiarity, I cannot help but correct what seems, on the surface at least, to be inaccurate or misleading.
In any case, both your comments and Quinn's in the book are broad, unsubstantiated generalisations, so they don't really say anything much one way or the other, nor do they have much with the real topic here, which is Philosophy, or the experience of Truth and so on.
I'm not arguing about what Buddhism actually is, but the fact that most people interpret it in a way that preserves their ego. Otherwise people wouldn't simply be passing on the same teachings. We would hear millions of new teachings from all the Bhuddas. And I am certain that there wouldn't be "Buddhists" teaching others about literal reincarnation.tharpa wrote:If there is no ego, who are what gets reincarnated? Actually, the buddhist doctrine is not about 'reincarnation' of a permanent soul, since everything that arises exists only as a composite of interdependent causality. Perhaps you are not aware that everything Quinn lays out in terms of logic comes almost directly from the buddhist tradition? Personally, I find it an excellent presentation but there was hardly a single thing there that disagreed in any way with classic buddhist abhidharma. The usual term in buddhist english is not 'reincarnation', in any case, but 'rebirth', which happens moment to moment, each previous moment providing the causal basis of the next. Just as there is no solid ego in the present moment, so there is none that gets 'reincarnated'.
Yes but we must first come to our own undiluted realization in order to teach correctly.tharpa wrote:This is a very strange statement, for it is 'the Buddhas' who gave such teachings.
How can the Buddhist teachings lose their way? It's the people who have lost their way. While the Bhuddist teachings remain sound only a select few hear the Truth behind it. If this wasn't the case then we wouldn't have the problems in the world we currently are dealing with.tharpa wrote:You might be right about common and 'true' followers, but this has nothing to do with either tradition, nor was it Quinn's point. Unless you are claiming that the entire buddhist tradition has lost the way. But if you are making such a point, you should provide more evidence. It's a rather sweeping claim!
Your using the popular teachings of modern Christianity as if it were the Truth. The Gospels (teachings of Jesus) contain the same timeless wisdom as the ancient teachings of the Buddha. Certainly they are articulated differently, but the point is the same.tharpa wrote:Also, since one tradition believes in an external god and his son who provide salvation for your sins no matter what you do as long as you 'believe', and the other tradition does not believe in any external agent of salvation and indeed 'believes' that any 'belief' is an extreme view and therefore fallacious, and that the law of karma, aka cause and effect, is unavoidable no matter what, it is hard to say they are the same. I am sure an enlightened 'Christian' is the same as an enlightened 'Buddhist' but at the point of enlightenment, there is no Christian or Buddhist really
David Quinn's compilation of Kierkegaards remarks on "Modern Christianity" (or at least how people choose to look at Christianity), explains exactly how people have destroyed what it was to truly be a Christian. The type of Christian Jesus personified. Sometimes I think it's misleading to even use the world Christianity and Jesus in the same sentence. I don't think Jesus ever labeled himself as anything but a man of God. Here's the link to the portion I spoke of on David's site. http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... ard02.htmltharpa wrote:Again, since they are entirely different traditions, it is hard to say. That said, I suspect that original Christianity is very different from post-Constaninian Christianity. Indeed, there is rather convincing evidence that the main NT gospels are translations into Hebrew of Greek translations of certain classic buddhist texts. If you look at the JesusisBuddha site, some of what that scholar writes is quite convincing. In any case, the organised tradition seems to have little in common with the spirit of the gospels, which in any case offer a very minimal basis for a spiritual tradition. There must have been more underneath the whole thing originally, but if so it was obscured long ago.
Again it is not Buddhism that has strayed from its purpose, its the so called Buddhists who have strayed. Like I said earlier, if the followers of the Bhudda's teachings have not misinterpreted the True meaning behind them, we wouldn't be dealing with world wide poverty, or the wars and violence we have in this world. Add to that we would have many new teachings being brought about. There would more sites like David Quinn's and Kevin Solway's. Madona is a Buddhist, should we go to her and ask her to share with us her wisdom?tharpa wrote:Also, I disagree that buddhism has strayed from its purpose. There are many vibrant traditions who maintain what they have received, and the teachings and practices continued to be transmitted. If you have any evidence to the contrary, then present it. Otherwise, I can only regard this as an unsubstantiated generalisation.
Or it could be a simple misinterpretation on your part. The dangerous thing about simple misinterpretations is that they have a snowball effect and tend to turn into HUGE misinterpretations. This is why we must give as much effort as we can to understanding the Truth behind every action and statement by others and ourselves.tharpa wrote:By the way, I have no desire to present myself here as a buddhist apologist necessarily, nor to I believe the many different schools and traditions, let alone various individuals included therein including myself, are beyond criticism or faultless. However, in response to such generalisations, and since they differ from my own experiences and general knowledge of the topic, with which I have some familiarity, I cannot help but correct what seems, on the surface at least, to be inaccurate or misleading.
You should disagree with that statement if what I have said to you comes across in its clear and intended purpose. We should always check ourselves before we check others.tharpa wrote:In any case, both your comments and Quinn's in the book are broad, unsubstantiated generalisations, so they don't really say anything much one way or the other, nor do they have much with the real topic here, which is Philosophy, or the experience of Truth and so on.
"Again it is not Buddhism that has strayed from its purpose, its the so called Buddhists who have strayed. Like I said earlier, if the followers of the Bhudda's teachings have not misinterpreted the True meaning behind them, we wouldn't be dealing with world wide poverty, or the wars and violence we have in this world."
If so-called buddhists have strayed, then buddhism too has strayed for there is no such thing as buddhism without those who practice, study and transmit it. Unless you are claiming that all buddhists today have totally lost it, which again is a rather extraordinary claim as I mentioned before. The fact that there is suffering in the world is not necessarily a failure of buddhism, rather of all of us who choose to perpetuate suffering for whatever reason. Buddhism makes no claim to possessing the totalitarian power to force people to lead virtuous lives and awaken from delusion.
In any case, if there were no sentient beings in confusion, there would be no Buddhism. It's there because there is a need; without that need, it will dissolve into blue sky.
If so-called buddhists have strayed, then buddhism too has strayed for there is no such thing as buddhism without those who practice, study and transmit it. Unless you are claiming that all buddhists today have totally lost it, which again is a rather extraordinary claim as I mentioned before. The fact that there is suffering in the world is not necessarily a failure of buddhism, rather of all of us who choose to perpetuate suffering for whatever reason. Buddhism makes no claim to possessing the totalitarian power to force people to lead virtuous lives and awaken from delusion.
In any case, if there were no sentient beings in confusion, there would be no Buddhism. It's there because there is a need; without that need, it will dissolve into blue sky.
"And I am certain that there wouldn't be "Buddhists" teaching others about literal reincarnation. "
I have yet to read one. Again, if there is no ego, how can there be 'literal reincarnation'. I believe this notion comes from the Hindu, not buddhist, tradition.
If you are referring to the tulku tradition, that is something slightly specialised, but even then it is not necessarily what it seems, i.e. Person A with Body X reincarnates as Person A into Body Z. There are some who do that, but this is due to exceptional 'skills' if you will rather than the typical birth-to-birth process. But this is a very arcane topic. In general terms, the notion of 'literal reincarnation' was one of the things the Buddha clearly debunked with his teachings on co-dependent origination, again which Quinn presents very clearly. Simply put: no self, no literal reincarnation. And I have never read a buddhist teaching which supported such a notion either, so I am really not sure where this idea comes from except perhaps from popular misconceptions.
I have yet to read one. Again, if there is no ego, how can there be 'literal reincarnation'. I believe this notion comes from the Hindu, not buddhist, tradition.
If you are referring to the tulku tradition, that is something slightly specialised, but even then it is not necessarily what it seems, i.e. Person A with Body X reincarnates as Person A into Body Z. There are some who do that, but this is due to exceptional 'skills' if you will rather than the typical birth-to-birth process. But this is a very arcane topic. In general terms, the notion of 'literal reincarnation' was one of the things the Buddha clearly debunked with his teachings on co-dependent origination, again which Quinn presents very clearly. Simply put: no self, no literal reincarnation. And I have never read a buddhist teaching which supported such a notion either, so I am really not sure where this idea comes from except perhaps from popular misconceptions.
The best way I can state what I am trying to say is, people now consider the religion, Buddhism, the cornerstone of what it is to be a Buddha. They fail to recognize that this is only a tool for achieving what lies ahead. People are "stuck" on the religion and end up making no further spiritual progression. If this wasn't the case there would be many more Buddhas in the world today.tharpa wrote:If so-called buddhists have strayed, then buddhism too has strayed for there is no such thing as buddhism without those who practice, study and transmit it. Unless you are claiming that all buddhists today have totally lost it, which again is a rather extraordinary claim as I mentioned before. The fact that there is suffering in the world is not necessarily a failure of buddhism, rather of all of us who choose to perpetuate suffering for whatever reason. Buddhism makes no claim to possessing the totalitarian power to force people to lead virtuous lives and awaken from delusion.
Agreed, but there will always be ignorance and unconsciousness. God is infinite in all aspects so there will always be somewhere it can serve a purpose.tharpa wrote:In any case, if there were no sentient beings in confusion, there would be no Buddhism. It's there because there is a need; without that need, it will dissolve into blue sky.
You are probably right about it being a popular misconception. But in any sense it is popular because people believe it thinking it is actually what Buddhism is. Afterall, isn't the Dalai Lama choosen as a child, and assumed to be the Buddha's soul reincarnated? Another way so called Buddhists have strayed.tharpa wrote:"And I am certain that there wouldn't be "Buddhists" teaching others about literal reincarnation. "
I have yet to read one. Again, if there is no ego, how can there be 'literal reincarnation'. I believe this notion comes from the Hindu, not buddhist, tradition.
If you are referring to the tulku tradition, that is something slightly specialised, but even then it is not necessarily what it seems, i.e. Person A with Body X reincarnates as Person A into Body Z. There are some who do that, but this is due to exceptional 'skills' if you will rather than the typical birth-to-birth process. But this is a very arcane topic. In general terms, the notion of 'literal reincarnation' was one of the things the Buddha clearly debunked with his teachings on co-dependent origination, again which Quinn presents very clearly. Simply put: no self, no literal reincarnation. And I have never read a buddhist teaching which supported such a notion either, so I am really not sure where this idea comes from except perhaps from popular misconceptions.
"You are probably right about it being a popular misconception. But in any sense it is popular because people believe it thinking it is actually what Buddhism is. Afterall, isn't the Dalai Lama choosen as a child, and assumed to be the Buddha's soul reincarnated? Another way so called Buddhists have strayed."
Now THAT's specific!
DL is not considered the Buddha's incarnation. He is regarded by some as the manifestation of Avalokiteshvara, who is a non-historical bodhisattva, one of the Big Three, which includes Manjusri and Vajrapani. These three symbolise the three aspects of enlightened manifestation, namely compassion (Av.), Prajna (awake insight) and Powerful Intention (ability to accomplish what is intended).
Others regard him as the direct incarnation of the 13th Dalai Lama, especially most lay Tibetans. This is not strictly true according to the inner definitions of such 'tulkus' but is the typical public perception. A tulku is technically defined as someone who manifests a 'Buddha Body', or nirmanakaya to use the Sanskrit version of the word, one of the 'Three Bodies of a Buddha', but this is not the same as the historical Buddha at all.
Personally, though, I think you make a good point, and I suspect that the tulku system will be phased out at some point. In many ways, it is similar to our previous notions of Royalty, in that some sort of 'Divine Presence' can be 'incarnated' in the form of a King or Queen, manifesting sacred command and presence which in turn provided a sacred container and referent for the entire society. In the West, this tradition was sanguilinear, although Rome did it by proclamation. Indeed, some believe that the early corruption of Christianity occurred when it accepted the role of being the official State Religion - instead of a subversive movement practiced by renunciants who rejected conventional society and practiced to attain sainthood - one of whose main functions was to confer Sacred Authority on the Roman Emperor, who was essentially selected by the elected oligarchy of the Senate.
It is a bit like this: imagine you are elected President of the United States. After you take the oath, a very moving experience no doubt, and somewhat life-changing, certainly view-changing, you go into the Oval Office and for the first time you sit behind the Presidential Desk, assuming your seat as President. You will not only look out at the world through different eyes and begin to function differently and relate to others all the time in the formal capacity of 'Mr. President', but of course all others will now treat you as such. So at least half if not 90% of the Tibetan tulku system involves this type of societal drama, role-playing or, more properly, high culture. Of course, this system was not so much for secular rulers but spiritual authorities, so it is not analogous that way, but atmospherically I think the above description is closer to how it works, although of course they trained people to become such authorities from early childhood, rather than suddently plopping them on a throne after an election. Outside the Tibetan feudal-buddhist context, I am not sure if it will work any more. Time will tell, and perhaps different ways of training and transmitting will emerge.
In any case, from personal observation and despite any reservations I might have, their system has done and continues, despite any misunderstandings, to consistently produce a cadre of trained and accomplished lineage holders; and this has continued despite the awesome destruction wreaked by the Chinese invastion of Tibet a few short decades ago, so they must be doing something right. They took a huge hit culturally and need a while to absorb this, finding a way to maintain the continuity of their sophisticated wisdom lineages, their secular cultural heritage in a way that is appropriate and realistic, and meanwhile adapting and evolving into their new situation which includes about 100,000 (only) outside of Tibet proper, many of whom now interact fully with the modern world and live all over. It is a huge, ongoing,multi-faceted challenge, but meanwhile many of them have proven skilled and extremely dedicated in communicating their traditions and disciplines all over the world.
So it is easy to make general criticisms, and there are many problems of course of all sorts, of which the formalised tulku system might well be one, but also there are many commendable accomplishments as well, despite their still today undergoing extraordinary challenges as a culture and people.
But in terms of your specific accusation, that is not really accurate in terms of the actual tradition versus the tabloid one.
Now THAT's specific!
DL is not considered the Buddha's incarnation. He is regarded by some as the manifestation of Avalokiteshvara, who is a non-historical bodhisattva, one of the Big Three, which includes Manjusri and Vajrapani. These three symbolise the three aspects of enlightened manifestation, namely compassion (Av.), Prajna (awake insight) and Powerful Intention (ability to accomplish what is intended).
Others regard him as the direct incarnation of the 13th Dalai Lama, especially most lay Tibetans. This is not strictly true according to the inner definitions of such 'tulkus' but is the typical public perception. A tulku is technically defined as someone who manifests a 'Buddha Body', or nirmanakaya to use the Sanskrit version of the word, one of the 'Three Bodies of a Buddha', but this is not the same as the historical Buddha at all.
Personally, though, I think you make a good point, and I suspect that the tulku system will be phased out at some point. In many ways, it is similar to our previous notions of Royalty, in that some sort of 'Divine Presence' can be 'incarnated' in the form of a King or Queen, manifesting sacred command and presence which in turn provided a sacred container and referent for the entire society. In the West, this tradition was sanguilinear, although Rome did it by proclamation. Indeed, some believe that the early corruption of Christianity occurred when it accepted the role of being the official State Religion - instead of a subversive movement practiced by renunciants who rejected conventional society and practiced to attain sainthood - one of whose main functions was to confer Sacred Authority on the Roman Emperor, who was essentially selected by the elected oligarchy of the Senate.
It is a bit like this: imagine you are elected President of the United States. After you take the oath, a very moving experience no doubt, and somewhat life-changing, certainly view-changing, you go into the Oval Office and for the first time you sit behind the Presidential Desk, assuming your seat as President. You will not only look out at the world through different eyes and begin to function differently and relate to others all the time in the formal capacity of 'Mr. President', but of course all others will now treat you as such. So at least half if not 90% of the Tibetan tulku system involves this type of societal drama, role-playing or, more properly, high culture. Of course, this system was not so much for secular rulers but spiritual authorities, so it is not analogous that way, but atmospherically I think the above description is closer to how it works, although of course they trained people to become such authorities from early childhood, rather than suddently plopping them on a throne after an election. Outside the Tibetan feudal-buddhist context, I am not sure if it will work any more. Time will tell, and perhaps different ways of training and transmitting will emerge.
In any case, from personal observation and despite any reservations I might have, their system has done and continues, despite any misunderstandings, to consistently produce a cadre of trained and accomplished lineage holders; and this has continued despite the awesome destruction wreaked by the Chinese invastion of Tibet a few short decades ago, so they must be doing something right. They took a huge hit culturally and need a while to absorb this, finding a way to maintain the continuity of their sophisticated wisdom lineages, their secular cultural heritage in a way that is appropriate and realistic, and meanwhile adapting and evolving into their new situation which includes about 100,000 (only) outside of Tibet proper, many of whom now interact fully with the modern world and live all over. It is a huge, ongoing,multi-faceted challenge, but meanwhile many of them have proven skilled and extremely dedicated in communicating their traditions and disciplines all over the world.
So it is easy to make general criticisms, and there are many problems of course of all sorts, of which the formalised tulku system might well be one, but also there are many commendable accomplishments as well, despite their still today undergoing extraordinary challenges as a culture and people.
But in terms of your specific accusation, that is not really accurate in terms of the actual tradition versus the tabloid one.