Some Questions of Trevor

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:25 am

Leyla,

Why is kow's sexuality important to you, and how is it relevant to this discussion?

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:36 am

Bo wrote:

DQ: I agree that my understanding and wisdom is completely unlike what is commonly taught in Buddhism these days. But then again, I consider modern Buddhism to be a joke.

B: It's obvious you consider anyone who doesn't agree with you a joke. That's a bit sad.

It is more serious than that. At root, what I disagree with is the drug-dealing mentality of modern Buddhism.

Modern Buddhist gurus have turned the Buddhist teachings into a vehicle for quietening the mind (no different from doling out valium and anti-depressants). It has virtually become indistinguishable from the Hare Krishnas, who also seek to nullify their minds and become as thoughtless as possible - in their case, via repetitive chanting. That is how dire the situation has become.

It's no surprise, then, that when one goes to a Buddhist community these days, it is invariably filled with people with psychiatric illnesses and severe emotional problems who are desperately looking for something - anything - to put an end to their mental turmoil. The whole idea of intelligent people actually using their brains in the attempt to break though into ultimate understanding, just as Gautama did under the bodhi tree, has vanished.

That is why it was entirely appropriate for me to say that modern Buddhists constantly trample all over Gautama in order to crush the life out of him. It is a sad situation, but so very true.

DQ: I agree with anyone who speaks the truth - e.g. Buddha, Diogenes, Lao Tzu, Huang Po, Chuang Tzu, Nagarjuna, Socrates, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, etc. My only disagreement is with those who preach false, shallow, common, populist, exoteric views.

B: Well nothing you say reflects the words of Buddha, Huang Po, Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Nagarjuna etc.

You are wrong. If you think that the timid sheep who flock to the Buddhist temples somehow have a connection to these great thinkers, you are in a dream-world.

Your disagreement again is with anyone who doesn't agree with you. Tut tut.

You are disagreeing with me here. I trust that you will "tut tut" yourself for this, in the same way that you are so quick to "tut tut" others.

DQ: What a hypocrite this Ajahn Chah is. I certainly don't see him taking his own advice.

B: What can I say - that's a highly reflective statement.

DQ: A meaningless response.

B: Meaningless is how I feel about this discussion.

I'm still wondering why Ajahn Chah isn't taking his own advice and heading off to get his ears clipped by his guru. I mean, if he is certain of what he is teaching others, then by rights, he should immediately withdraw, go live in a cave somewhere and chant the mantra, "certainty is delusional", a few more million times.

On the other hand, if he is uncertain of his teachings, then why he getting up there on the platform and teaching others in the first place? Has he no shame?

So at bottom, he is either a hypocrite who doesn't believe in his own teachings, or a charlatan passing off something that he isn't sure about.

DQ: The brain (or mind) becomes enlightened when it has eliminated all of its delusions about the nature of existence. And it is precisely because it has eliminated its delusions that it is able to accurately determine, with clear-sightedness, that it is enlightened.

B:1. The brain is not the mind

DQ: Ah, but that is merely your belief - which, as you pointed out earlier, is delusional.

B: Piggybacking eh. As is evident, you're using second hand beliefs. You don't know it for yourself.

Also the above statement is not a belief.

So what would you call it?

DQ: It is interesting to read of the Buddha's initial enlightenment. As stated in Wikipedia:

B: At least I know now where you are picking up your divine sources from.

My "divine source" is the Source itself - the Infinite. However, for a standard depiction of the Buddha's life, as handed down to us by way of legend, Wikipedia is perfectly adequate.

DQ: Note that he openly claimed that he was completely awakened - which, according to the laughable joke which is modern Buddhism, automatically relegates him to the status of a delusional meglomaniac who had no understanding of true Buddhist wisdom!

B: It's clear (to the clear minded) that no Buddhist has said the Buddha is a megalomaniac.

I know, that was my point. Buddhists are just as happy to engage in double standards as Christians are, especially when their cherished belief-system is at stake.

But I guess that is blind worship for you. It automatically creates the need for irrational thinking and mental blocks - and with it, the need to scoff at logic and rationality. It is the standard MO for all religious fundamentalism.

-

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:39 am

David Quinn wrote: Wikipedia is perfectly adequate.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Buddhism, a buddha (Sanskrit बुद्ध) is any being who has become fully awakened (enlightened)... :)

.

edit: bold :)

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:10 am

Well, Wiki is not a reliable stand alone reference source but it's ok if one can corroborate the info.

Bo,

I hope you know that piety, moral indignation and petty jibes are not a substitute for argument.

Dan Rowden

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:16 am

Yes, Wikipedia is not so effective when it comes to deeper matters concerning wisdom.

For example, do we mean "fully awakened" in the sense of fully comprehending the nature of Reality, no longer misunderstanding it on any level, and being able to enter into direct experience of it on occasion?

Or do we mean "fully awakened" in the sense of being fully conscious of the nature of Reality at all times during the day, without interruption and without slipping into delusion, not even for a split-second?

Both uses are perfectly valid. I would place Gautama in the former category, rather than the latter.

-

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:21 am

kowtaaia wrote:In Buddhism, a buddha (Sanskrit बुद्ध) is any being who has become fully awakened (enlightened)

This definition can mean a number of different things.

It is possible for a person to fully awaken, and then periodically lapse into a state that is less than fully awake.

It is also possible for a person to fully awaken and never lapse into sleep or dream again.

It is unlikely that the person who was called "the Buddha" was of the latter type.

beebuddy · Post by **beebuddy** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:23 am

Dan Rowden wrote:Well, Wiki is not a reliable stand alone reference source but it's ok if one can corroborate the info.

Bo,

I hope you know that piety, moral indignation and petty jibes are not a substitute for argument.

Dan Rowden

I'm pretty sure Bodhidharma said the same thing.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:29 am

You guys (not you, bee) have no idea how expected your responses were. :)

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:41 am

If it is true that the Buddhist religion, with its temples, dogmas and rituals, is essentially a lie created by Gautama for the purpose of preserving his wisest teachings throughout the ages, then we can say that Modern Buddhism is nothing other than the pure lie itself, stripped of all the wisdom.

This is quite a comical situation when you think about it, especially when you consider that the collapse of Buddhism into a pure lie over the past few centuries has coincided with the rise of the printing press, mass education, computers, and all the other means of mass communication at our disposal. The Buddhist religion, as a vehicle for the preservation of wisdom, has become redundant. Its purpose has been served and now it is no longer needed. Wisdom can now be dispensed more directly. And yet people continue to flock to this false outer shell of Buddhism, not for any wisdom which happens to be there, but precisely because it has become a pure lie.

-

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:56 am

kowtaaia wrote:

You guys (not you, bee) have no idea how expected your responses were. :)

Are you trying to claim a victory of some kind here?

Instead of engaging in this silly game-playing all the time, why not give us something that will stimulate our minds and inspire us to value wisdom more deeply?

For example, answer this: Why are Buddhists always so glib and self-righteous in their interactions with people?

Do you have an honest answer to that?

-

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:57 am

David Quinn wrote:If it is true that the Buddhist religion, with its temples, dogmas and rituals, is essentially a lie created by Gautama for the purpose of preserving his wisest teachings throughout the ages, then we can say that Modern Buddhism is nothing other than the pure lie itself, stripped of all the wisdom.

This is quite a comical situation when you think about it...

Actually some of the Buddhist trappings are really quite comical. On the way to the grocery section of the Wal-Mart Supercenter, I walked past a Buddha ligtning-ball lamp, (a Buddha statue holding a lightning ball with purple glowing streaks in it over his head). I actually burst out laughing at the contradiction. I don't think it was supposed to be humorous though...

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:02 am

David Quinn wrote: kowtaaia wrote:

You guys (not you, bee) have no idea how expected your responses were. :)
Are you trying to claim a victory of some kind here?

Instead of engaging in this silly game-playing all the time, why not give us something that will stimulate our minds and inspire us to value wisdom more deeply?

This "all the time" crap is female talk.

David Quinn wrote: For example, answer this: Why are Buddhists always so glib and self-righteous in their interactions with people?

Do you have an honest answer to that?

Ask a Buddhist.

.

Bo · Post by Bo » Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:54 am

Dan Rowden wrote:Well, Wiki is not a reliable stand alone reference source but it's ok if one can corroborate the info.

Bo,

I hope you know that piety, moral indignation and petty jibes are not a substitute for argument.

Dan Rowden

Thanks, Dan - you're right. It's just impossible to even have a comparable discussion. For example, it's like trying to talk to someone about advanced calculus when they are still trying to argue that Pythagoras was off his head and all the mathematicians are crap-heads except him etc etc. i.e It's really too boring and baseless.

Thanks for the reminder though - I usually see it that way too (I am no debater, nor have an inclination to it usually).

Have fun,
Bo

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:03 pm

Bo,

Apparently, David has encountered some Buddhists that he perceived to be glib and self-righteous in their interactions with people and now feels that Buddhists are ALWAYS glib and self-righteous in their interactions with people. Could you set him straight, please?

.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:05 pm

Bo,

Well, I don't give a crap about "formal" debate either. But I guess the point is there's no way for David to know exactly what you're getting at without some degree of explanation. How would you ordinarily engage a person in discussion of spiritual matters pertaining to reality, enlightenment etc. Or, don't you do that at all?

Bo · Post by Bo » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:08 pm

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Bo,
Your disagreement again is with anyone who doesn't agree with you. Tut tut.
Umm... sorry to intrude, but this raised an eyebrow. What kind of philosopher agrees with people who disagree with him?

Dear Trevor

*grins*

Yes perhaps you are right.

I am more interested in Truth than just being 'right' - which seems to be the only thing David is interested in i.e warping and misrepresenting even basic concepts to make sure he is right. It is really evident enough when David suggests that he is the only one who has it right and that's not unlike cult leaders who claim they have the one and only version of the Truth. ie we are not talking one point but that his views are in disagreement with the entire Buddhist tradition so - well to me definitely an eyebrow raised but not interesting enough..

ie You may be able to appreciate I am not coming from a philosophising background (as I have no general interest) but what he says is so full of bullshit, it's not even worth the time to go through a proper debate. ie. If it started on conceivable grounds eg. per example above, a x b = ab then maybe that would be possible - instead there is the raving of someon insisting a x b = cz.

Regardless, I am not a philosophiser and only a passing guest - it is interesting to have had a taste of how some of these Boards work though admittedly an example like David is a bit, well very boring..

Good day to you.

Bo

Bo · Post by Bo » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:15 pm

kowtaaia wrote:Bo,

Apparently, David has encountered some Buddhists that he perceived to be glib and self-righteous in their interactions with people and now feels that Buddhists are ALWAYS glib and self-righteous in their interactions with people. Could you set him straight, please?

.

Well kowtaaia, the mirror shines true enough for one like David.

Dear David - I'm happy to be called a Buddhist if that helps :)

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:20 pm

kowtaaia wrote:Apparently, David has encountered some Buddhists that he perceived to be glib and self-righteous in their interactions with people and now feels that Buddhists are ALWAYS glib and self-righteous in their interactions with people.

Actually, the vast majority of Buddhists (i.e. those who identify with a given tradition within Buddhism) I've encountered have been as David suggested. Very few exceptions. Shardrol would be one.

Bo · Post by Bo » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:21 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:Bo,

Well, I don't give a crap about "formal" debate either. But I guess the point is there's no way for David to know exactly what you're getting at without some degree of explanation. How would you ordinarily engage a person in discussion of spiritual matters pertaining to reality, enlightenment etc. Or, don't you do that at all?

I do it a-plenty, Dan.

The best explanation I can think of at the moment is per above.

We could talk advanced calculus but you have one person in the corner ranting and raving about how a x b = cz and not ab. And how all the other students and Professors in the entire University tradition are crazy mutants who have destroyed TRUE MATHEMATICS and he is the only one who gets it.

Say I try to talk about the formula a + (b x d) with him (simple enough still) it would be useless not only because:

1) He can't get over the fact that his understanding that a x b does NOT equal to cz

and

2) Any genuine Mathematics reference text is not accepted into the discussion as HIS is the one and true version (does that phrase sound familiar to you too by the way? ;) )

and

3) It really is (no kidding) too boring and like talking to a child who can't accept that he can't get always get his own way.

Perhaps this is not the way of debates, but I hope you see where I am coming from. And also why it really IS (no joke) meaningless.

Wish you well,
Bo

Bo · Post by Bo » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:25 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:
kowtaaia wrote:Apparently, David has encountered some Buddhists that he perceived to be glib and self-righteous in their interactions with people and now feels that Buddhists are ALWAYS glib and self-righteous in their interactions with people.
Actually, the vast majority of Buddhists (i.e. those who identify with a given tradition within Buddhism) I've encountered have been as David suggested. Very few exceptions. Shardrol would be one.

There are plenty more, Dan. No worries, buddy.

Like for example, I have no doubt that there are many wonderful philosophisers.

There is one Professor of Philosophy I know who is a lovely chap come to think of it.

Have fun ya'all.

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:25 pm

So there you go. Plenty of cheap shots about how boring and limited I am, but no attempt to address any of the points I made.

Now why isn't that a surprise?

It is interesting that Hakuin, a famous Zen Master from 18th century Japan, found similar faults with the Buddhist religion that I am finding now. For example, in one of his talks, he said:

The Importance of Kensho

At present, we are infested in this country with a race of smooth-tongued, worldly-wise Zen teachers who feed their students a ration of utter nonsense. "Why do you suppose Buddha-patriarchs through the ages were so mortally afraid of words and letters?" they ask you. "It is," they answer, "because words and letters are a coast of rocky cliffs washed constantly by vast oceans of poison ready to swallow your wisdom and drown the life from it. Giving students stories and episodes from the Zen past and having them penetrate their meaning is a practice that did not start until after the Zen school had already branched out into the Five Houses, and they were developing into the Seven Schools. Koan study represents a provisional teaching aid which teachers have devised to bring students up to the threshold of the house of Zen so as to enable them to enter the dwelling itself. It has nothing directly to do with the profound meaning of the Buddha-patriarchs' inner chambers."

An incorrigible pack of skinheaded mules has ridden this teaching into a position of dominance in the world of Zen. You cannot distinguish master from disciple, jades from common stones. They gather and sit - rows of sleepy inanimate lumps. They hug themselves, self-satisfied, imagining they are the paragons of the Zen tradition. They belittle the Buddha- patriarchs of the past. While celestial phoenixes linger in the shadows, starving away, this hateful flock of owls and crows rule the roost, sleeping and stuffing their bellies to their hearts' content.

If you don't have the eye of kensho, it is impossible for you to use a single drop of the Buddha's wisdom. These men are heading straight for the realms of hell. That is why I say: if upon becoming a Buddhist monk you do not penetrate the Buddha's truth, you should turn in your black robe, give back all the donations you have received, and revert to being a layman.

Don't you realize that every syllable contained in the Buddhist canon - all five thousand and forty-eight scrolls of scripture - is a rocky cliff jutting into deadly, poison-filled seas? Don't you know that each of the twenty-eight Buddhas and six Buddhist saints is a body of virulent poison? It rises up in monstrous waves that blacken the skies, swallow the radiance of the sun and moon, and extinguishes the light of the stars and planets.

It is there as clear and stark as could be. It is staring you right in the face. But none of you is awake to see it. You are like owls that venture out into the light of day, their eyes wide open, yet they couldn't even see a mountain were it towering in front of them. The mountain doesn't have a grudge against owls that makes it want to hide. The fault is with the owls alone.

You might cover your ears with your hands. You might put a blindfold over your eyes. Try anything you can think of to avoid these poisonous fumes. But you can't escape the clouds sailing in the sky, the streams tumbling down the hillsides. You can't evade the falling autumn leaves scattering spring flowers.

You might wish to enlist the aid of the fleetest winged demon you can find. If you plied him with the best of food and drink and crossed his paw with gold, you might get him to take you on his back for a couple of circumnavigations of the earth. But you would still not find so much as a thimbleful of ground where you could hide.

I am eagerly awaiting the appearance of some dimwit of a monk (or barring that, half such a monk) richly endowed with a natural stock of spiritual power and kindled within by a raging religious fire, who will fling himself unhesitatingly into the midst of this poison and instantly die the Great Death. Rising from that Death, he will arm himself with a calabash of gigantic size and roam the great earth seeking true and genuine monks. Wherever he encounters one, he will spit in his fists, flex his muscles, fill his calabash with deadly poison and fling a dipperful of it over him, drenching him head to foot, so that he too is forced to surrender his life. Ah! what a magnificent sight to behold!

The Zen priests of today are busily imparting a teaching to their students that sounds something like this:

"Don't misdirect your efforts. Don't chase around looking for something apart from your own selves. All you have to do is to concentrate on being thoughtless, on doing nothing whatever. No practice. No realization. Doing nothing, the state of no-mind, is the direct path of sudden realization. No practice, no realization - that is the true principle, things as they really are. The enlightened ones themselves, those who possess every attribute of Buddhahood, have called this supreme, unparalleled, right awakening."

People hear this teaching and try to follow it. Choking off their aspirations. Sweeping their minds clean of delusive thoughts. They dedicate themselves solely to doing nothing and to making their minds complete blanks, blissfully unaware that they are doing and thinking a great deal.

When a person who has not had kensho reads the Buddhist scriptures, questions his teachers and fellow monks about Buddhism, or practices religious disciplines, he is merely creating the causes of his own illusion - a sure sign that he is still confined within samsara. He tries constantly to keep himself detached in thought and deed, and all the while his thoughts and deeds are attached. He endeavors to be doing nothing all day long, and all the while he is busily doing.

But if this same person experiences kensho, everything changes. Although he is constantly thinking and acting, it is totally free and unattached. Although he is engaged in activity around the clock, that activity is, as such, non-activity. This great change is the result of his kensho. It is like water that snakes and cows drink from the same cistern, which becomes deadly venom in one and milk in the other.

Bodhidharma spoke of this in his Essay on the Dharma pulse:

If someone without kensho tries constantly to make his thoughts free and unattached, he commits a great transgression against the Dharma and is a great fool to boot. He winds up in the passive indifference of empty emptiness, no more able to distinguish good from bad than a drunken man. If you want to put the Dharma of non- activity into practice, you must bring an end to all your thought-attachments by breaking through into kensho. Unless you have kensho, you can never expect to achieve a state of non-doing.

***

It is refreshing to see some genuine passion for Truth for a change. I love it.

An incorrigible pack of skinheaded mules has ridden this teaching into a position of dominance in the world of Zen. You cannot distinguish master from disciple, jades from common stones. They gather and sit - rows of sleepy inanimate lumps. They hug themselves, self-satisfied, imagining they are the paragons of the Zen tradition. They belittle the Buddha- patriarchs of the past. While celestial phoenixes linger in the shadows, starving away, this hateful flock of owls and crows rule the roost, sleeping and stuffing their bellies to their hearts' content.

Absolutely spot in. Hakuin couldn't describe the sorry state of modern Buddhism any more clearly if he tried.

-

beebuddy · Post by **beebuddy** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:27 pm

Except that Buddhism, as an institution, does not exist in this country the way it does in Japan. I assume you aren't speaking to Japanese people.

Iolaus · Post by **Iolaus** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:41 pm

The problem is, it sounds like he is strongly advocating practice - sitting zazen . How did Hakuin propose people obtain kensho?

Bo · Post by Bo » Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:15 pm

Iolaus wrote:The problem is, it sounds like he is strongly advocating practice - sitting zazen . How did Hakuin propose people obtain kensho?

Dear Iolaus

I do not know if it's 'obtained' but it happens. One Roshi said 'enlightenment is an accident and practice makes you accident prone'

But really, even kensho is just one part - it can be helpful but not always. Some students who think they have had kensho start becoming the biggest ego megalomaniacs and no service is done ie. they become even more unconsolable, delueded and start vomitting around causing a nuisance.

In effect, even the best things can be skewed when delusion rules.

But yes, practice is the path. Fortunately that is always possible for everyone, though not everyone opts for it.

Best wishes,
Bo

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:59 pm

Bo wrote:
Iolaus wrote:The problem is, it sounds like he is strongly advocating practice - sitting zazen . How did Hakuin propose people obtain kensho?
Dear Iolaus

I do not know if it's 'obtained' but it happens. One Roshi said 'enlightenment is an accident and practice makes you accident prone'

God help Buddhism.