GENIUS FORUMS

My understanding is that his was, at first, an oral tradition (the issue being not how literate he was but how literate those around him were). But with the creation of the Sangha that surely must have been changing, even in his lifetime.

As for E-Sangha - I think that place is simply evidence of how rigid, fanatical and deeply entrenched in tedious scholasticism Buddhism can be. I found nothing of interest there at all, apart from that fact. I had cause to consider registering there many months ago, but was immediately put off by the voluminous terms and conditions for doing so.

brokenhead wrote:Kevin, as far as I know, the Buddha was literate but left nothing in writing. Is that correct?

As Dan says, it's generally acknowledged that the teachings were at first transmitted orally. This accounts for the form of many of the teachings, which are structured in a manner which makes them easier to remember.

If the Buddha could have written his own teachings, but chose not to, then I think it's fair to say that he made a huge mistake.

maestro wrote:Perhaps you should have gone into a patient discussion in depth and pointed out logical inconsistencies in the theory of rebirth

If you try to do that, all they do is quote long passages back at you from the scriptures which talk about things that they have no clue about.

They say, "Here, read this", and think that's an argument.

To some extent I was purposely projecting a particular aspect to try and shock them out of their complacency. They live in such a insulated world, it's difficult to get through to them in any way at all.

In my past experience with people of that type, beating around the bush with them will waste a lot your time, and won't have any effect on them at all.

At some point someone says it's a dead-end argument, and shuts it down.

It's good to look at discussions like that. It reminded me of the ugly consequences of falling-back onto scripts and rules. Travelling in well-trodden paths. Routines. Being respected by yes-men.


Kevin said: Abusing someone turns them into a demon. But it depends on what a person sees as abuse. Didn't all those fellas turn into demons when they thought themselves abused, because Kevin wasn't using 'right speech', even though he was being straight-up ? And, Kevin's being abused left-right-and-centre didn't turn him into a demon.


The Buddha's voluminous teaching forced people to want to write it down to find patterns. When they found patterns, they created a system, with rules for everything. They couldn't find the underlying principles, so they turned to texts, and away from examining reality with their own powers of thought. So it's probably better to give people things to get attached to, certain fundamental principles like 'truth' and 'rationality' and 'causation', so that they become grounded in individual reasoning, debate and enquiry. The chances of corruption are less significant. Though the problem then is that wisdom warps into cunning in rhetoric and semantics, then back again into wanting to find fundamentalist systems.

I found it interesting when someone compared Kevin's behavior to that of a stranger barging into someone's home, for the purpose of redecorating the place.

That argument doesn't make too much sense in the face of the fact that it's a public discussion forum and all Kevin was doing was giving his perspective.

Not only that, but who says it's their home! :-)

This comment by one of their founding members had me in stitches:

"Scholarship and not realization, will be the deciding standard of what is Dharma and what is not, on E-Sangha." - Namdrol

There you have it - Buddhist idiocy in a nutshell.

Regarding (Zen) Buddhism in the West: A koan

Kevin Solway wrote:

brokenhead wrote:Kevin, as far as I know, the Buddha was literate but left nothing in writing. Is that correct?

As Dan says, it's generally acknowledged that the teachings were at first transmitted orally. This accounts for the form of many of the teachings, which are structured in a manner which makes them easier to remember.

If the Buddha could have written his own teachings, but chose not to, then I think it's fair to say that he made a huge mistake.

Yet it's the same mistake that Jesus made.

How is that a koan, Brad? Do you mean, it's a westerner's Zen koan ?

Here's another westerner's Zen koan:

On second thoughts, almost everything people say when drunk is a westerner's Zen koan.

Kevin, that line about having to leave the planet to avoid the rules of a global moderator was a bit silly. Or were you just taking the piss over the idea of moderators?

Kelly Jones wrote:Kevin, that line about having to leave the planet to avoid the rules of a global moderator was a bit silly. Or were you just taking the piss over the idea of moderators?

I was expressing a valid feeling that you have when you are posting on that forum. Some of those moderators really do think of themselves as gods of the entire world, and you always feel as though there are people looking over your shoulder, ready to pounce on you, and crush you underfoot, like a bug, the very moment you say a word out of line.

E-sangha is an environment of fear, where many people live in fear of being banned because what they write might offend crazy egomaniacs.

Let me give an idea of the ridiculousness of it all. You will remember that I told red-ant, or whatever her name was, that she was "ignorant". The moment I said that, a moderator swoops-down, like some vulture, quoting my words verbatim, and saying that I am insulting someone. They could have done this in a pm, but chose to do it publicly. So if there was any offense taken, the offense was now doubled. I then replied, quoting his post verbatim, which now triples the offense.

That kind of manic moderation and censorship ends up spiraling out of control and becomes ridiculous.

I could claim that he was publicly insulting me by suggesting that I was insulting someone else, just because I said that they were ignorant, which, in itself, was simply the truth.

Ok. I understand that, and I'm guilty myself of being a manic insect terminator.

It's kind of difficult sometimes, because one's experience and memories prompt one to interfere and steer a person away from certain directions, just for the sake of efficiency. But sometimes people are so attached to that direction, that steering them away from it is actually treading on their entire spirit. Then they get all narky and even more attached to that direction out of a feeling of deprivation.

Trying to make those 'orange-flavoured pills' is not easy. The flavour has to be suitable to that person's tastes, but also be a wonderful new toy that has been totally designed to open the mind to the Infinite. If they can't get the toy to work, they get narky. I guess one can only persevere and be patient.

For instance, I was trying to explain the Prologue to Thus Spake Zarathustra to a beginner, and she literally fell ill. At such times I wonder whether I'm like Red Dust, or whether most women are hopelessly retarded. The feminine mind is so criticism-phobic. But really, they don't like open and direct criticism, and actually enjoy gossip, covert sniping, and subtle backstabbing. I guess that's one sort of toy... talking about "other people" and the "ideal person".

What makes you guys think that they didn't know what Kevin was talking about? ...Maybe they saw through his questions and played dumb, etc...? ...If it's so plain and simple!

It just doesn't make sense any other way. It's much easier to assume that it's a setup...

Genuine,
It's not that Kevin was being complicated, it's that Tibetan Buddhism has so many do's and don't's. It frowns on asking questions that don't kowtow to the do's and don't's. On questions that really try to get to the bottom of things.

I'm not the most wise, but I do try to find out exactly what a person says, and not let my ego interfere overmuch. So I try to ask very clear, direct questions. But put into the context of a Buddhist lecture, even when the yeshe or lama or their translator is inviting questions, they become impatient. Their first answer hasn't helped, nor the second, nor the third, and after a while they label me as a trouble-maker. Really, the problem is that their understanding of the Buddhist teachings are false, although all their vocabulary is text-book perfect. Their answers haven't gotten to the core of the issue, so the investigation is not over for me. But it is me who has to apologise to them (they say, the Buddhas).

It's just plain ordinary old cult-mindedness. Insiders/outsiders.

geniuine wrote:What makes you guys think that they didn't know what Kevin was talking about? ...Maybe they saw through his questions and played dumb, etc...? ...If it's so plain and simple!

It just doesn't make sense any other way. It's much easier to assume that it's a setup...

Deep, deep down, they do indeed know what I'm talking about. As you say, the truth is staring them right in the face.

But they are trying desperately to cover-up and forget any kind of knowledge of cause and effect. Seriously. We are talking about a serious mental illness.

It you tried to talk to them about, say, evolution, on that forum, they would again "play dumb" and pretend they don't even know what you're talking about.

If it's not about finding out the truth and nothing but the truth, then it has to do with sustaining ones ego, etc... Aren't most internet communities used by lonely people and those whom are looking to socialize and make friends. In that case, it's no wonder people behave in this way. They're scared of the real world, so they make their home in an internet community. They pretend it's similar to real life and gang up on others with their so-called buddies, etc. That's what it is, it's a facade. Whose gonna admit the truth when a lie is so much more satisfying?

If one knows this, then why would one dehumanize oneself and patronize the less fortunate like that? Who benefits?

geniuine wrote:If one knows this, then why would one dehumanize oneself and patronize the less fortunate like that? Who benefits?

My reasoning is this:

There may be some young people who read that forum, and perhaps some that are not so young, who haven't yet bought into the whole thing, and suspect that there might be a lot more to the Buddha's teachings than what they are being told.

Someone blustering in and fearlessly speaking the plain truth might just be enough to make them see a little light and give them some confidence, before their light is snuffed-out.

Also, it helps to condition the moderators into putting-up with a little more than they usually do, and it causes them to slightly release their death-grips on the necks of everyone there. This has the run-on effect of giving everybody there a little more elbow-room, and a little more freedom. And once they get a taste of a little more freedom, they may not ever want to give it up again.

That makes you look like a saint (haha) and someone who wasn't just looking to ruffle as many feathers as possible for personal pleasure. Hard to believe. Reminds me of Mother Theresa - in fact, it was this place that made me see her in a less then perfect light - takes one to know one?

You know, you lost potential "bait" by coming on too strongly at times and by not answering questions that were asked repeatedly.

geniuine wrote:You know, you lost potential "bait" by coming on too strongly at times and by not answering questions that were asked repeatedly.

Well I'm not their slave, so I'm not going to answer any foolish question they ask me. To me, it's like someone asking me, "What colour were Homer's socks, in Episode 5 of the second season?" It's not something I'm going to waste my time with, and I don't care what people think.

Kevin wrote:

"There may be some young people who read that forum, and perhaps some that are not so young, who haven't yet bought into the whole thing, and suspect that there might be a lot more to the Buddha's teachings than what they are being told.

"Someone blustering in and fearlessly speaking the plain truth might just be enough to make them see a little light and give them some confidence, before their light is snuffed-out.

"Also, it helps to condition the moderators into putting-up with a little more than they usually do, and it causes them to slightly release their death-grips on the necks of everyone there. This has the run-on effect of giving everybody there a little more elbow-room, and a little more freedom. And once they get a taste of a little more freedom, they may not ever want to give it up again."

[Tearing up]

Gosh Kevin. That was beautiful. That's how I conceived my role here on GF.

;-)

My reasoning is this:
[...]
Someone blustering in and fearlessly speaking the plain truth might just be enough to make them see a little light and give them some confidence, before their light is snuffed-out.
[...]

[...]It's not something I'm going to waste my time with, and I don't care what people think.

That's the message I saw.

Though, I'll give you this much: there maybe absolutely no hope for people who ask or pay attention to such dumb questions. This definitely separates it all, quite clearly.

geniuine wrote:You know, you lost potential "bait" by coming on too strongly at times and by not answering questions that were asked repeatedly.

I agree. "You are too ignorant to understand" might be true, but people like Mikiel make the same claim. So how can such claims be recognised as true? The only evidence we can go on is a person's consistency of reasoning and their overall presentation.

In the E-Sangha discussions, there was too much frustration. There wasn't enough time for the potentially bright individuals to explore Kevin. There were so many people in cross-over threads that it was hard to focus on the one theme, like emptiness.

Poison for the Heart avoids too much frustration, because although everything it contains is readable as the same rebuke, there is enough variety that the ego can chew on some stuff and leave the reasoning mind free to consider where the rebuke lies. This wasn't really the case in the hyper-exciteable discussion with the Buddhists. There were mostly rebukes, and nowhere for any better persons to rest their herd-bullied emotions.