Baloney! and Jundo Cohen

[shel]

A student of Jundo Cohen posted this video in another forum recently and I was wondering what this Buddhist community thinks of it.



Seems to me he's saying that other Buddhist beliefs are false or "baloney" and that his are "real" and "beautiful." Unfortunately this is how some teachers "teach."

[Indrajala]

He is clearly unaware that the Mahāsāṃghika sect from the very beginning thought of the Buddha as something transcendental. His revisionism is his right, but his arguments are unconvincing.

[shel]

How can it be revisionist if it was thought this way from the beginning?

[Dechen Norbu]

Because it wasn't. Huseng was pointing that fact.

[shel]

Uh, I'm confused. Please help me understand this. If, for example, someone offered the thought that 1 + 1 = 2 many years ago, and it has been thought that way ever since, how can someone today saying 1 + 1 = 2 be considered revisionism?

[Astus]

I don't see anything strange about this. He is in agreement with the classic Zen style of iconoclasm, of internalisation and pointing to the mind as the only real buddha.

[shel]

I don't see anything strange about this. He is in agreement with the classic Zen style of iconoclasm, of internalisation and pointing to the mind as the only real buddha.

No one said it was strange. In fact I've suggested that it's common.

[Astus]

No one said it was strange. In fact I've suggested that it's common.

So, what I said that it is in agreement with a style. If by common you mean that there are Zen teachers who talk ill of the Mahayana sutras, that is not a usual practice at all, and never was. It's equivalent of slandering the Dharma. The result of this is that his followers will not study the teachings and so fail to understand it. The idea that "Buddha was only human" - what is called "secular Buddhism" - is failing to understand the complexity and the meaning of Mahayana teachings about buddhahood. But, considering the audience, this sentiment is what they probably like to hear from their teacher. Also, the whole Dogen Sangha seems to be like this.

[shel]

I meant that it's not uncommon for some religious teachers to slander others in order to promote their own school of thought or belief.

In my experience it's not common at all for Buddhist teachers to slander the sutras or the ideas that they contain.

[seeker242]

It seems to me just that he is correctly noticing the fact that not everything written in the scriptures should be taken literally nor is it intended to be taken literally.

[shel]

It seems to me just that he is correctly noticing the fact that not everything written in the scriptures should be taken literally nor is it intended to be taken literally.

He's saying that his beliefs or experiences (nothing holy or unholy, etc.) are "real" and "beautiful," and that they are more magical and fantastic than anything a "storybook writer could cook up." He's calling the people who wrote the sutras "storybook writers," which is slanderous. Why does he do that instead of just saying as you do that not everything written in the scriptures should be taken literally?

[jundo cohen]

Hi Guys,

Thank you for posting that talk here. However, I should be faulted for not mentioning during the talk what I usually say when discussing such subjects, to wit, I may criticize ideas and doctrines but I never will criticize a person's personal religious beliefs or right to believe in them ... whether they are Buddhists in any of its many flavors, Christians, Jews, Scientologists, Atheists or Agnostics. For example, I might say that some of the doctrines of Scientology are (in my outsider's view) to be doubted or criticized perhaps, but I would never criticize any person who has found a home in Scientology and that faith or their right to practice Religion as they see fit. Same for anyone's Buddhist beliefs, no matter how "unbelievable" or "fantastic" from my point of view. I apologize for not underlining that in this talk, as I do almost always when these topics come up.

It should always be recalled that "one man's 'possibly made-up legend' is another man's real event and Sacred Truth", that mine or anyone's interpretation of Buddha (except for the Buddha himself, whoever he was) is not "the last word on Buddha", and I support the religious right of anyone to believe what they wish, and find meaning where they find meaning. It may be doubtful to me personally that Jesus literally turned loaves to fishes or walked upon the water (although I can find great symbolic meaning in it) ... but who am I to say it did not happen even though I think it likely someone's hagiographical, created story? Some folks may find their medicine in Buddhist Teachings of a certain flavor, and some folks in Christianity, Judaism ... maybe even Scientology!

I recently made this point elsewhere:

I would never say that someone's personal beliefs or right to believe them is "baloney" ... although I believe that such extreme stories and sexist divisions and magical practices are, perhaps, something that may be called full of "baloney". It is a fine line, a bit like (to use an example) believing perhaps that the "War in Iraq and search for 'WMD' was baseless baloney" although never calling the right of any person to honestly support the war, feeling it right as a patriotic citizen, to be just "baloney".

I do feel that some of the contents and many of the wondrous stories of the Sutras are not to be taken literally, and I feel that many of the more fantastic stories and idealized descriptions are perhaps to be doubted. But please do not doubt the Teachings of the Sutras shining behind/as/right-through-and-through those stories and descriptions themselves.

Gassho, and may you walk the Path for you,

Jundo Cohen

[shel]

I might say that some of the doctrines of Scientology [for example] are (in my outsider's view) to be doubted or criticized perhaps, but I would never criticize any person who has found a home in Scientology...

Wouldn't you? The equivalent to what you've said in the video above, in part, would be that L. Ron Hubbard is a "storybook writer." That would be a direct slandering of a Scientologist, and the person who is the founder of Scientology no less.

It should always be recalled that "one man's 'possibly made-up legend' is another man's real event and Sacred Truth"

So you realize that you're publicly criticizing "another man's Sacred Truth." Good, at least you know what you're doing.

I support the religious right of anyone to believe what they wish, and find meaning where they find meaning.

You show support by publicly criticizing what others believe and find meaningful? I'd hate to see what you do to not show support.

... but who am I to say it did not happen ...

Indeed.

I recently made this point elsewhere:

I would never say that someone's personal beliefs or right to believe them is "baloney" ... although I believe that such extreme stories and sexist divisions and magical practices are, perhaps, something that may be called full of "baloney". It is a fine line, a bit like (to use an example) believing perhaps that the "War in Iraq and search for 'WMD' was baseless baloney" although never calling the right of any person to honestly support the war, feeling it right as a patriotic citizen, to be just "baloney".

I like the way you inject "sexist divisions" and war into the 'superstitious' side of the issue. Your students may fall for your ad hominem fallacies Jundo, but I don't.

No one cares what you think peoples right to believe is. People do not care for their sacred truths, as you call them, to be slandered in public. And haven't you taken vows to not do just that?

By the way, speaking of sexist divisions, how many of your priests are women?

[jundo cohen]

Hi Shel,

Would I have some grounds to call former 1950's Science Fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard possibly a "story book writer"? I don't know, it is possible ...

... many witnesses have reported Hubbard making statements in their presence that starting a religion would be a good way to make money. These statements have led many to believe that Hubbard hid his true intentions and was motivated solely by potential financial rewards.

Editor Sam Merwin, for example, recalled a meeting: "I always knew he was exceedingly anxious to hit big money—he used to say he thought the best way to do it would be to start a cult." (December 1946)[73] Writer and publisher Lloyd Arthur Eshbach reported Hubbard saying "I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is." Writer Theodore Sturgeon reported that Hubbard made a similar statement at the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society. Likewise, writer Sam Moskowitz reported in an affidavit that during an Eastern Science Fiction Association meeting on November 11, 1948, Hubbard had said "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."[74] Milton A. Rothman also reported to his son Tony Rothman that he heard Hubbard make exactly that claim at a science fiction convention. In 1998, an A&E documentary titled "Inside Scientology" shows Lyle Stuart reporting that Hubbard stated repeatedly that to make money, "you start a religion."[75]

According to The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, ed. Brian Ash, Harmony Books, 1977:
" . . .[Hubbard] began making statements to the effect that any writer who really wished to make money should stop writing and develop [a] religion, or devise a new psychiatric method. Harlan Ellison's version (Time Out, UK, No 332) is that Hubbard is reputed to have told [John W.] Campbell, "I'm going to invent a religion that's going to make me a fortune. I'm tired of writing for a penny a word." Sam Moskowitz, a chronicler of science fiction, has reported that he himself heard Hubbard make a similar statement, but there is no first-hand evidence."

However, who knows if that is the truth and, if someone finds merit in the man's teachings, it does not matter I suppose. (I am not saying, by the way, that any of the story writers in Buddhism were "out to make a buck", although we have had such types too. However, they may have had their own reasons for writing embellished tales ... or the embellished tales may, if fact, be true and not embellished at all).

L. Ron's teachings may be true and not embellished at all ... who am I to say? L. Ron Hubbard taught that "Xemu, was ... the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Official Scientology dogma holds that the essences of these many people remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm". ...

Almost any religion seeks to explain away its more "hard to understand" beliefs ... The most fantastic stories of the New and Old Testaments can all be explained then as merely "cover" for the higher meanings they represent. Even the Scientologists, to be fair, also appear to explain their own beliefs in similar terms, which we must likewise respect and not criticize ... I very much appreciate this interpretation of L. Ron Hubbard's wilder teachings by some folks in Scientology ...

Authors Michael McDowell and Nathan Robert Brown discuss misconceptions about the Xenu text in their book World Religions at Your Fingertips, and observe, "Probably the most controversial, misunderstood, and frequently misrepresented part of the Scientology religion has to do with a Scientology myth commonly referred to as the Legend of Xenu. While this story has now been undoubtedly proven a part of the religion (despite the fact that church representatives often deny its existence), the story's true role in Scientology is often misrepresented by its critics as proof that they 'believe in alien parasites.' While the story may indeed seem odd, this is simply not the case." The authors write that "The story is actually meant to be a working myth, illustrating the Scientology belief that humans were at one time spiritual beings, existing on infinite levels of intergalactic and interdimensional realities. At some point, the beings that we once were became trapped in physical reality (where we remain to this day). This is supposed to be the underlying message of the Xenu story, not that humans are "possessed by aliens". McDowell and Brown conclude that these inappropriate misconceptions about the Xenu text have had a negative impact, "Such harsh statements are the reason many Scientologists now become passionately offended at even the mention of Xenu by nonmembers."


If ya look at it that way, it almost makes sense ... and is just expedient means to heal and help others.

Again, and to be clear, I am in no way criticizing ... and only celebrating ... the right and freedom of anyone to find the path calling to them, be it Buddhist, Christian, Jew or Muslim, Atheist or Scientologist ... whether it be the Shurangama Sutra or Hubbard's Dianetics/Battlefield Earth.

Gassho, Jundo

[jundo cohen]

Oh, you asked ...

By the way, speaking of sexist divisions, how many of your priests are women?

One, but we do not think in terms of whether she is a man or woman.

Gassho, J

[shel]

Oh, you asked ...

By the way, speaking of sexist divisions, how many of your priests are women?

One, but we do not think in terms of whether she is a man or woman.

Gassho, J

Is it a secret? Who is she, what's her name?

[shel]

Hi Shel,

Would I have some grounds to call former 1950's Science Fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard possibly a "story book writer"? I don't know, it is possible ...

... many witnesses have reported Hubbard making statements in their presence that starting a religion would be a good way to make money. These statements have led many to believe that Hubbard hid his true intentions and was motivated solely by potential financial rewards.

Editor Sam Merwin, for example, recalled a meeting: "I always knew he was exceedingly anxious to hit big money—he used to say he thought the best way to do it would be to start a cult." (December 1946)[73] Writer and publisher Lloyd Arthur Eshbach reported Hubbard saying "I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is." Writer Theodore Sturgeon reported that Hubbard made a similar statement at the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society. Likewise, writer Sam Moskowitz reported in an affidavit that during an Eastern Science Fiction Association meeting on November 11, 1948, Hubbard had said "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."[74] Milton A. Rothman also reported to his son Tony Rothman that he heard Hubbard make exactly that claim at a science fiction convention. In 1998, an A&E documentary titled "Inside Scientology" shows Lyle Stuart reporting that Hubbard stated repeatedly that to make money, "you start a religion."[75]

According to The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, ed. Brian Ash, Harmony Books, 1977:
" . . .[Hubbard] began making statements to the effect that any writer who really wished to make money should stop writing and develop [a] religion, or devise a new psychiatric method. Harlan Ellison's version (Time Out, UK, No 332) is that Hubbard is reputed to have told [John W.] Campbell, "I'm going to invent a religion that's going to make me a fortune. I'm tired of writing for a penny a word." Sam Moskowitz, a chronicler of science fiction, has reported that he himself heard Hubbard make a similar statement, but there is no first-hand evidence."

However, who knows if that is the truth and, if someone finds merit in the man's teachings, it does not matter I suppose. (I am not saying, by the way, that any of the story writers in Buddhism were "out to make a buck", although we have had such types too. However, they may have had their own reasons for writing embellished tales ... or the embellished tales may, if fact, be true and not embellished at all).

L. Ron's teachings may be true and not embellished at all ... who am I to say? L. Ron Hubbard taught that "Xemu, was ... the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Official Scientology dogma holds that the essences of these many people remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm". ...

Almost any religion seeks to explain away its more "hard to understand" beliefs ... The most fantastic stories of the New and Old Testaments can all be explained then as merely "cover" for the higher meanings they represent. Even the Scientologists, to be fair, also appear to explain their own beliefs in similar terms, which we must likewise respect and not criticize ... I very much appreciate this interpretation of L. Ron Hubbard's wilder teachings by some folks in Scientology ...

Authors Michael McDowell and Nathan Robert Brown discuss misconceptions about the Xenu text in their book World Religions at Your Fingertips, and observe, "Probably the most controversial, misunderstood, and frequently misrepresented part of the Scientology religion has to do with a Scientology myth commonly referred to as the Legend of Xenu. While this story has now been undoubtedly proven a part of the religion (despite the fact that church representatives often deny its existence), the story's true role in Scientology is often misrepresented by its critics as proof that they 'believe in alien parasites.' While the story may indeed seem odd, this is simply not the case." The authors write that "The story is actually meant to be a working myth, illustrating the Scientology belief that humans were at one time spiritual beings, existing on infinite levels of intergalactic and interdimensional realities. At some point, the beings that we once were became trapped in physical reality (where we remain to this day). This is supposed to be the underlying message of the Xenu story, not that humans are "possessed by aliens". McDowell and Brown conclude that these inappropriate misconceptions about the Xenu text have had a negative impact, "Such harsh statements are the reason many Scientologists now become passionately offended at even the mention of Xenu by nonmembers."


If ya look at it that way, it almost makes sense ... and is just expedient means to heal and help others.

Again, and to be clear, I am in no way criticizing ... and only celebrating ... the right and freedom of anyone to find the path calling to them, be it Buddhist, Christian, Jew or Muslim, Atheist or Scientologist ... whether it be the Shurangama Sutra or Hubbard's Dianetics/Battlefield Earth.

Gassho, Jundo

So have we established that you don't have a problem publicly criticizing persons who believe differently than you do?

Again, haven't you taken vows against such behavior?

[jundo cohen]

Oh, you asked ...

By the way, speaking of sexist divisions, how many of your priests are women?

One, but we do not think in terms of whether she is a man or woman.

Gassho, J

Is it a secret? Who is she, what's her name?

What's your name, the Buddha's name? Her name is Allison.

http://sweepingzen.com/treeleaf-sangha- ... nd-america

So have we established that you don't have a problem publicly criticizing persons who believe differently than you do?

Hmmm. The Sutras and most Buddhist Ancestors were heard to constructively criticize other Paths, and each other, all the time. I do not feel that my saying that "X could be a possibly made up story and not factually true, and I believe it likely bunkum, but others find truth and value in it and that is wonderful for them" to be overstepping any Precept.

Would you criticize my such belief then?

Gassho,

[shel]

Oh, you asked ...

By the way, speaking of sexist divisions, how many of your priests are women?

One, but we do not think in terms of whether she is a man or woman.

Gassho, J

Is it a secret? Who is she, what's her name?

What's your name, the Buddha's name? Her name is Allison.

http://sweepingzen.com/treeleaf-sangha- ... nd-america

Wow, just days ago. Congratulations on the new novice priests. Is it true that the Soto Zen Buddhist Association does not recognize them? If so, that's too bad. However it's good to know that at least some standards are being upheld in the Soto school.

So have we established that you don't have a problem publicly criticizing persons who believe differently than you do?

Hmmm. The Sutras and most Buddhist Ancestors were heard to constructively criticize other Paths, and each other, all the time. I do not feel that my saying that "X could be a possibly made up story and not factually true, and I believe it likely bunkum, but others find truth and value in it and that is wonderful for them" to be overstepping any Precept.

Would you criticize my such belief then?

I haven't taken a vow to cultivate and encourage respectful speech and not slander others.

But let me see if I understand your moral reasoning correctly. Some of your ancestors have not upheld their precepts so you feel that it's okay for you to not uphold them also, is that right?

[jeeprs]

I agree that there are many fantastic passages in the Mahayana scriptures, and indeed in much pre-modern religious literature. When you read the accounts of Faxian's Pilgrimage to the West to find the scriptures, it was full of tales of miracles. Literally 'fabulous'. But this is where interpretive skill is called for. We need to be sympathetic to the difference between the modern and pre-modern understanding, and also be careful not to necessarily believe that we are so much wiser than they, because we have a better grasp of what we understand to be "objective truth". There are many symbolic meanings in scripture which communicate profoundly important insights into the nature of the human condition. And furthermore, our 'scientific view of the universe' might be blind to some important fundamental realities on account of our pre-commitment to what we understand as the nature of reality.

One man's 'possibly made-up legend' is another man's real event

Venerable Sir, I think the problem with this view is that it is essentially relativist. It is very much the same viewpoint as represented by Protagorus who claimed that 'man is the measure of all things'. Implicitly this means that there are no truths to be found, but only the firmly-held beliefs of those who hold them. So essentially we are left with no way to discriminate true and false beliefs. If you had a society were very large numbers of people ardently believed in falsehood, there would be no method of countering that, as there are no truths apart from beliefs.

You mentioned a particular modern 'religion', so-called, and said that you believe in the right of persons to honor that belief-system. Indeed they have a democratic right under modern law, but this does not mean that this organization is not in fact a corrupt, criminal enterprise.

One is obliged to make judgements about such things, and it is an unfortunate possibility that one's dearly held beliefs might be wrong. I acknowledge that this can be so, while at the same time believing that the things I believe in, are preferable to other beliefs, equally strongly held.

At the end of the day I do accept as more than possible that the Buddha knows something that the ordinary man doesn't know, and I don't think that our modern science necessarily knows what that is. But that is not the same as being gullible either. As I said to start out with, it is all a question of interpretation.