Ask An Ex-Monk: The Buddha WAS NOT FAT

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Ask An Ex-Monk: The Buddha WAS NOT FAT

Postby Snovid » Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:53 am

I am from Poland I use google translator I do not know English
User avatar
Snovid
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:10 pm

Re: Ask An Ex-Monk: The Buddha WAS NOT FAT

Postby Snovid » Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:03 am





Its hard to understand for me
so I ask You what you think about this guy?
I am from Poland I use google translator I do not know English
User avatar
Snovid
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:10 pm

Re: Ask An Ex-Monk: The Buddha WAS NOT FAT

Postby Knotty Veneer » Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:25 am

Snowid wrote:Its hard to understand for me
so I ask You what you think about this guy?


I've tried going thru some of this guy's stuff on youtube. Some of it is pretty bizarre conspiracy theory stuff (Buddhism and... Nazis, UFOs, NWO etc.).

What do I think of him? Self-publicist and making it up largely as he goes along.

Stay clear and learn your Dharma from a less loopy source.
You cannot polish a turd - however a pleasing effect can be attained by rolling one in glitter.
Knotty Veneer
 
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:50 pm

Re: Ask An Ex-Monk: The Buddha WAS NOT FAT

Postby Simon E. » Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:28 am

Seconded.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2122
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Ask An Ex-Monk: The Buddha WAS NOT FAT

Postby Snovid » Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:57 am

Hm...ok
I want from every one (who can) answer of this questions





I am from Poland I use google translator I do not know English
User avatar
Snovid
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:10 pm

Re: Ask An Ex-Monk: The Buddha WAS NOT FAT

Postby yan kong » Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:03 am

He is pretty indoctrinated with a firm Theravada view of the history of Buddhism, the problem is that he thinks he holds an "objective" viewpoint validated by modern scholars.

He has very low opinions of Mahayana Buddhism and has a very elementary understanding of Mahayana philosophy.

This is not to say he knows nothing about Buddhism, he was a monk. Though I think you could get your information from a better source.

I speak of course about the first videos of the ex monk, not the non sense videos that follow.
User avatar
yan kong
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:01 am

Re: Ask An Ex-Monk: The Buddha WAS NOT FAT

Postby PorkChop » Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:32 am

Brian Ruhe is one of those people I just can't get on board with. I made an earlier thread about him + his polemics and the most poignant replies were (paraphrasing) "he misrepresents Theravada and his understanding of the Mahayana is woefully inadequate".
Ruhe once made a statement to the effect of inadequate reverence for the Arahants is the reason 500,000 temples were destroyed in China. Not only was his number of temples destroyed in China incorrect, but many Chinese Buddhists throughout history have made golden statues for 18 of the Arahants, which were also sometimes summarily destroyed by the Communists.
I wouldn't take this guy as an authority on anything.

When I asked him at least 4 questions on his youtube channel, in separate posts due to the limitations of youtube, his response was "I teach that too, so what's your point?" completely side stepping any issues brought up by my questions and ignoring the fact that the basis for my questions were backed with blatantly obvious research.

I do not take this guy to be a practitioner of Buddhism, let alone Theravada, especially when he openly criticizes teachings of even popular Theravadans like Ajaan Brahm.

The rest of the videos you posted aren't really even issues. The Polish guy (Slavoj Zizek) displays a complete lack of understanding of basic Buddhism, regardless of the school. Not only that, but he seems completely incapable of expressing a clarified thought. The second guy, (nonsense in Buddhism) has neither a background in Buddhism nor of the doctrines/theories he uses to argue against it.
User avatar
PorkChop
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm
Location: Marietta, GA

Re: Ask An Ex-Monk: The Buddha WAS NOT FAT

Postby Jikan » Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:42 pm

On the topic of Zizek: his criticisms of Buddhism as practiced today are interesting if somewhat poorly formulated. That is, you have to accept the terms of his argument (I think he's an unreconstructed dialectical materialist riffing on Lacan, Hegel, and mass culture) BEFORE you can make sense of his argument, which... come to find out... is predicated in very selective sources (he leans heavily on B. Victoria's book Zen at War, for instance).

Anyway, Zizek's great fodder for a philosophy department, but probably not so helpful here at DW.
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Ask An Ex-Monk: The Buddha WAS NOT FAT

Postby Knotty Veneer » Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:23 pm

Jikan wrote:On the topic of Zizek: his criticisms of Buddhism as practiced today are interesting if somewhat poorly formulated. That is, you have to accept the terms of his argument (I think he's an unreconstructed dialectical materialist riffing on Lacan, Hegel, and mass culture) BEFORE you can make sense of his argument, which... come to find out... is predicated in very selective sources (he leans heavily on B. Victoria's book Zen at War, for instance).

Anyway, Zizek's great fodder for a philosophy department, but probably not so helpful here at DW.


Zizek is the latest cultural studies superstar - like Barthes or Derrida in my day - and about as relevant to anything as they were (i.e. not very).

Attacking bourgeois western Buddhists is an easy target and his criticisms are not anything new to anyone in Buddhist circles in the West. We are all aware of its shortcomings. Materialist fundamentalists whether Marxist or New Atheist will never really understand anything they can't measure.
You cannot polish a turd - however a pleasing effect can be attained by rolling one in glitter.
Knotty Veneer
 
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:50 pm

Re: Ask An Ex-Monk: The Buddha WAS NOT FAT

Postby Jikan » Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:35 pm

Knotty Veneer wrote:Attacking bourgeois western Buddhists is an easy target and his criticisms are not anything new to anyone in Buddhist circles in the West. We are all aware of its shortcomings. Materialist fundamentalists whether Marxist or New Atheist will never really understand anything they can't measure.


Trungpa beat Zizek to it in The Myth of Freedom.
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Ask An Ex-Monk: The Buddha WAS NOT FAT

Postby Alfredo » Thu Oct 24, 2013 3:13 pm

I like Ruhe. He's not exactly a scholar, though he is certainly very erudite, and has been deeply affected by scholarship. And yes, he repeatedly and clearly expresses his conviction that Theravada represents the true teaching of the Buddha, of which Mahayana is a distortion (though he does concede that it is not entirely unrelated to the Buddha's teaching). He came to this conclusion, not unreasonably, after learning that scholars more or less agree in rejecting the Mahayana sutras (though it is possible to doubt the Pali canon as well). Anyway I find his honesty, and sense of humor, about this refreshing. He obviously loves Buddhism, and loves teaching the dharma.

His belief in the Loch Ness Monster (it's a naga), Bigfoot (it's a yaka), and UFO's (they're devas) is difficult to disentangle from traditional Buddhist folk belief. In other words, he's not THAT crazy, especially considering that his mother was a trance-channeler. Some of the conspiracy-theory topics mentioned above were actually topics due to be discussed at another group that he attends, and may not represent his personal views.

Read his autobiography! http://www.theravada.ca/biography/
Alfredo
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:52 am

Re: Ask An Ex-Monk: The Buddha WAS NOT FAT

Postby Nemo » Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:42 pm

If you want your daily dose of crazy I much prefer space barbie.

Is it just me or Does Zizek seem drunk and phoning it in sometimes? Ok, most of the time.
User avatar
Nemo
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Ask An Ex-Monk: The Buddha WAS NOT FAT

Postby Knotty Veneer » Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:53 pm

Alfredo wrote:His belief in the Loch Ness Monster (it's a naga), Bigfoot (it's a yaka), and UFO's (they're devas) is difficult to disentangle from traditional Buddhist folk belief. In other words, he's not THAT crazy, especially considering that his mother was a trance-channeler. Some of the conspiracy-theory topics mentioned above were actually topics due to be discussed at another group that he attends, and may not represent his personal views.


Anyone who puts that amount of youtube time into Alien Abductions, Kennedy assassination etc. kinda makes doubt that he knows sh*t about Buddhism (or indeed anything else).
You cannot polish a turd - however a pleasing effect can be attained by rolling one in glitter.
Knotty Veneer
 
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:50 pm

Re: Ask An Ex-Monk: The Buddha WAS NOT FAT

Postby PorkChop » Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:40 pm

Alfredo wrote:Read his autobiography! http://www.theravada.ca/biography/


No thanks.
Former Karma Kagyu guy who never got it and now slags everything but his own teacher's specific blend of Theravada.
He goes out of his way to encourage people to renounce their Bodhisattva vows, which I personally find disgusting.
The things he's asserted about Tibetan Buddhism, Pure Land, and Mahayana on the whole are about 99% false, and he sidesteps any counter claim.
I've read repeatedly that he's supposed to have a sense of humor, I guess it's his hubris & hardliner stance that blind me, but I honestly don't see any.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy had a very mild case of autism.
User avatar
PorkChop
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm
Location: Marietta, GA

Re: Ask An Ex-Monk: The Buddha WAS NOT FAT

Postby Alfredo » Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:32 pm

Knotty Veneer wrote:
Anyone who puts that amount of youtube time into Alien Abductions, Kennedy assassination etc. kinda makes doubt that he knows sh*t about Buddhism (or indeed anything else).


I haven't seen all the videos; it's possible that I've missed some of the craziness. But he's obviously studied early Buddhist history.

PorkChop wrote:
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy had a very mild case of autism.

If so, would that count as a mark against him?
When I was growing up, we didn't really have autism, Aspergers, etc. They hadn't started medicalizing geekiness yet.
Alfredo
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:52 am

Re: Ask An Ex-Monk: The Buddha WAS NOT FAT

Postby PorkChop » Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:25 pm

Alfredo wrote:PorkChop wrote:
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy had a very mild case of autism.

If so, would that count as a mark against him?
When I was growing up, we didn't really have autism, Aspergers, etc. They hadn't started medicalizing geekiness yet.


I wouldn't say a mark against him, but would explain some of his behaviors. Asperger's didn't really come about till 1981, but Autism's been around since the 60s, and if that's the case you must be old. Autism and Asperger's have nothing to do with geekiness; they would just explain his obsession with orthodoxy, his apparent lack of empathy (re Bodhisattva Vows), his inflexible thinking, and some of his verbal ticks.
User avatar
PorkChop
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm
Location: Marietta, GA


Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media, theanarchist and 15 guests

>