The Problem With Buddhists

[plwk]

It's all... here
What do you think? A valid observation or just a rant or both?

[mindyourmind]

Where to begin ....

A 2005 article. From a website that makes a living out of being quite disrespectful and negative about Buddhism. What exactly is this "Buddhism" we are talking about?
It generalizes, sets up strawmen and then triumphantly crows about having The Truth. It takes Eckardt Tolle seriously.

I could go on, but shouldn't.

[gregkavarnos]

From the link

From “The Power of Now”, Eckhart Tolle:

“The word enlightenment conjures up the idea of some superhuman accomplishment, and the ego likes to keep it that way, but it is simply your natural state of felt oneness with Being. It is a state of connectedness with something immeasurable and indestructible, something that, almost paradoxically, is essentially you and yet is much graeater than you. It is finding your true nature beyond name and form. The inability to feel this connectednedssgives rise to the feeling of seperation , from yourself and from the world around you. You then perceive yourself consciously or unconsciously, as an isolated fragment. Fear arises, and conflict within and without becomes the norm.

I love the Buddha’s simple definition of enlightenment as “the end of suffering”. There is nothing superhuman in that, is there? Of course, as a definition, it is incomplete. It only tells you what enlightenment is not: no suffering. But what’s left when there is no more suffering? The Buddha is silent on that, and his silence implies that you’ll have to find out for yourself. He uses a negative definition so that the mind cannot make it into something to believe in or into a superhuman accomplishment, a goal that is impossible for you to attain. Despite this precaution, the majority of Buddhists still believe that enlightenment is for the Buddha, not for them, at least not in this lifetime.” (Emphasis mine).

Whether Tolle is fully enlightened or not he accurately diagnoses the root problem with Buddhists and Buddhism today, and in that alone he is more enlightened that 99% of Buddhists I have had the pleasure of meeting.

A)How does he know what the majority of Buddhists believe? B)One minute the article is telling us Tolle is not enlightened, the next minute he is "more" enlightened. C)Who the &*%^$%^$^ is Tolle and why should I believe what he says (whether it happens to be true or not)? ie What is the basis for his statements?

[tomamundsen]

C)Who the &*%^$%^$^ is Tolle and why should I believe what he says (whether it happens to be true or not)?

Because he was on Oprah!

But anyway, his argument is valid... coming from a non-Buddhist perspective. However, at least outside of the Pali canon, the Buddha does indeed talk about what is involved in enlightenment other than the cessation of suffering, and yes, it's mostly superhuman stuff. So, if he's right, then he's got a point. But in either case, it's not so tactful to speak so negatively about something that he takes so much inspiration from.

[mindyourmind]

C)Who the &*%^$%^$^ is Tolle and why should I believe what he says (whether it happens to be true or not)?

Because he was on Oprah!

But anyway, his argument is valid... coming from a non-Buddhist perspective. However, at least outside of the Pali canon, the Buddha does indeed talk about what is involved in enlightenment other than the cessation of suffering, and yes, it's mostly superhuman stuff. So, if he's right, then he's got a point. But in either case, it's not so tactful to speak so negatively about something that he takes so much inspiration from.

What part of his argument (such as it is) do you regard as "valid"? All of it?
How much value should we attach to the "non-Buddhist perspective"?
Where do you draw the line between a life-changing event such as enlightenment and "superhuman stuff"?
How should we deal with material that has inspired centuries of yogis and dharma practitioners and now get dismissed in this offhand way by someone who, on his own version, comments as an outsider? Is it valid, is it fair of me to comment in this manner on say Sufism if I had never really practiced that path?

Of course he has the right to say these things, just as I have the right to be rather skeptical of his qualifications to say so.

[gregkavarnos]

...However, at least outside of the Pali canon, the Buddha does indeed talk about what is involved in enlightenment other than the cessation of suffering, and yes, it's mostly superhuman stuff...

Nonsense, practice leads to enlightenment, and as a consequence of this practice some "superhuman" capabilities do arise. I think that what bothers Mr. Tolle is he has not gained "superhuman" abilities and thus he cannot justify what he believes is his enlightenment. Anyway you don't even need to be fully enlightened to gain siddhis, so it seems, in fact that Mr. Tolle, far from being enlightened does not even have some realisations (except, maybe, a realisation of the collosal extent of his egotism*).

*In which case he and I (and most of us here) are in the same league!

[Jikan]

The author is trying to diagnose a problem with Buddhists... without actually describing any of them. Which is to say, he has no evidence, just some unwarranted comments on Buddhism from a popular writer. Further, I really don't seem much reason to accept any of the claims made about *Buddhism* based on the argument given.

This isn't something to be taken seriously. The author doesn't have anything to say.

[mindyourmind]

...However, at least outside of the Pali canon, the Buddha does indeed talk about what is involved in enlightenment other than the cessation of suffering, and yes, it's mostly superhuman stuff...

Nonsense, practice leads to enlightenment, and as a consequence of this practice some "superhuman" capabilities do arise. I think that what bothers Mr. Tolle is he has not gained "superhuman" abilities and thus he cannot justify what he believes is his enlightenment. Anyway you don't even need to be fully enlightened to gain siddhas, so it seems, in fact that Mr. Tolle, far from being enlightened does not even have some realisations (except, maybe, a realisation of the collosal extent of his egotism*).

*In which case he and I (and most of us here) are in the same league!

Isn't this also the same Mr. Tolle who dabbles in a whole load of religions and practices a bit of Christianity, a bit of Buddhism, a bit of New Age and so on? If so, maybe he is drilling holes all over the show in stead of one hole that goes deep enough, as the saying would have it.

Mr. Tolle reminds me of that other spiritual giant, Mr. Deepak Chopra, also a frequenter of the temple of Oprah .

[Jikan]

Chopra is not a bad comparison.

I was thinking of Ken Wilber: someone who knows enough about world religions to see the similarities in doctrine and method, but not enough to understand the significance of the differences or to make a commitment to any one tradition or set of precepts... and consequently has no remorse about cashing in on whatever he finds marketable in any tradition.

[edylumiyo]

Chopra is not a bad comparison.

I was thinking of Ken Wilber: someone who knows enough about world religions to see the similarities in doctrine and method, but not enough to understand the significance of the differences or to make a commitment to any one tradition or set of precepts... and consequently has no remorse about cashing in on whatever he finds marketable in any tradition.

Isn't this also the same Mr. Tolle who dabbles in a whole load of religions and practices a bit of Christianity, a bit of Buddhism, a bit of New Age and so on? If so, maybe he is drilling holes all over the show in stead of one hole that goes deep enough, as the saying would have it.

Mr. Tolle reminds me of that other spiritual giant, Mr. Deepak Chopra, also a frequenter of the temple of Oprah .

This was posted at Buddha Forum and I thought it was an interesting read.

To be honest, I don't see an issue with someone not making a "commitment" to one specific tradition or dabbling in other traditions. It seems we can find numerous teachings in different religions or philosophies that we can relate to or learn from. Along with that, finding a tradition that a person can agree with on every single point can be quite challenging, and without that, why would someone label themselves a follower? Even worse can be accepting those beliefs or points simply because they are part of a tradition.

As to someone marketing their beliefs and "cashing in" on them, if that is the occupation they have chosen, teaching others about their beliefs (which is what every religious leader does, whether Lama, Priest, or anything else) in order for someone to search out their own, it seems like a fine way to make a living. We all live in a society where we have to earn money in one way or another to keep a roof over our head, pay for the internet that we use to visit these forums, and cover the rest of our bills. I don't see Tolle making money from the Dharma, as he is simply expressing his own views through different mediums in order to help others. It doesn't seem Tolle or anyone else can be faulted for doing something he loves and teaching others in order to provide for himself.

Hope you are all well.

[Jikan]

Hi edilumiyo,

I have reason to disagree on both points. Here's why.

I think the choose-your-own-adventure approach to selecting a spiritual path (that is, picking and choosing what you agree with out of the fragments you collect in the Eastern Spirituality aisle of Barnes and Noble) amounts to fashioning a religion out of one's own ego. What's the final arbiter of truth? Whether I like something or not. Where do likes and dislikes come from? My ego's house on bullshit street. Approached from another angle: if you want to accomplish a method, you need to find a method you can work with and really dig in and do it. If you're switching up or patching over whenever the going gets tough or as the mood strikes, you're not really getting anywhere with any one method. We call it Aloha, Amigo!*

I think mining the world's spiritual and cultural traditions, taking what you like, and cashing in on that is a form of theft. In doing this, one is lazily profiting from the labors of others without reciprocating in any way. It's parasitic and hence counterproductive. It's a form of epistemic violence. Teaching Dharma is not a vocation; you don't go into it for fun and profit. So if this is one's intention, thinking that teaching meditation or "Waking Down" or whatever is an easier career path than any other, then one is seeking a path of ease for oneself and a position of respect and admiration, rather than trying to do the good work of helping people out of their ego's house on bullshit street on honest terms.


*here's an explanation of the Aloha Amigo thing

http://dctendai.blogspot.com/2010/07/al ... hical.html

[plwk]

I think mining the world's spiritual and cultural traditions, taking what you like, and cashing in on that is a form of theft. In doing this, one is lazily profiting from the labors of others without reciprocating in any way. It's parasitic and hence counterproductive. It's a form of epistemic violence.

Oh ya...I can hear the familiar slogan of 'Dharma should be FREE' thingy....

[Malcolm]

It's all... here
What do you think? A valid observation or just a rant or both?

Proof of rebirth -- this guy was bounced from e-sangha. And what do you know, here he is again...

[edylumiyo]

Hi edilumiyo,

I have reason to disagree on both points. Here's why.

I think the choose-your-own-adventure approach to selecting a spiritual path (that is, picking and choosing what you agree with out of the fragments you collect in the Eastern Spirituality aisle of Barnes and Noble) amounts to fashioning a religion out of one's own ego. What's the final arbiter of truth? Whether I like something or not. Where do likes and dislikes come from? My ego's house on bullshit street. Approached from another angle: if you want to accomplish a method, you need to find a method you can work with and really dig in and do it. If you're switching up or patching over whenever the going gets tough or as the mood strikes, you're not really getting anywhere with any one method. We call it Aloha, Amigo!*

I think mining the world's spiritual and cultural traditions, taking what you like, and cashing in on that is a form of theft. In doing this, one is lazily profiting from the labors of others without reciprocating in any way. It's parasitic and hence counterproductive. It's a form of epistemic violence. Teaching Dharma is not a vocation; you don't go into it for fun and profit. So if this is one's intention, thinking that teaching meditation or "Waking Down" or whatever is an easier career path than any other, then one is seeking a path of ease for oneself and a position of respect and admiration, rather than trying to do the good work of helping people out of their ego's house on bullshit street on honest terms.


*here's an explanation of the Aloha Amigo thing

http://dctendai.blogspot.com/2010/07/al ... hical.html

Thanks for the response, Jikan. It is greatly appreciated.

Let us discuss the first paragraph in your response, the subject of picking and choosing what one agrees with. Realistically, what other approach is there? Blindly accepting certain teachings because it is part of some "tradition"? Following a belief system that you don't entirely agree while still calling yourself a follower? Should a person disregard other teachings and not adhere to the ones that make sense to them because it would be considered picking and choosing from another tradition? This is extremely problematic and is a classic example of clinging and attachment.

You mention finding a method you can work with and really dig into it. It seems the method in this case is understanding different religions, teachings, etc. in order to find your own beliefs, just as you have done by following your own tradition. Being flexible and open minded to other teachings, or in this case switching up and patching over as you describe it, is the only way to proceed with finding your own beliefs. The other method is to have them dictated to you, which doesn't seem like a healthy approach.

As to your second paragraph, I'm not sure how he is "mining" traditions to make a profit with no reciprocity. What he is giving is a way for people to understand different viewpoints, something that doesn't seem like an ill gesture at all. Tolle isn't capitalizing on the Dharma, but on the commentary, that is the distinction and there is nothing that shows he is doing otherwise. Lazy profits don't come from writing numerous books, having them published, and much more. It seems like it would be very difficult to achieve those things while approaching the tasks in a lazy fashion and with that being the case it doesn't appear to be an easy career path.

I'm sure there are many people who have found his and others that teach through similar methods to be very helpful in helping people out of their ego's house on bullshit street on honest terms.

[Rael]

Enlightenment is when you can combine compassion with sunyata....

it's not enough to understand Sunyata and become nihilistic...

the trick is combining love and compassion with Emptiness.


then of course you have full blown Holy Alchemical /Buddhist Completion Stage / Raja Yoga>Enlightenemnt<dealy thinga ma bob.supermen....women turning into men to be supermen Lotus Sutra deal thinga ma bob. supermen......

[Josef]

Enlightenment is when you can combine compassion with sunyata....

it's not enough to understand Sunyata and become nihilistic...

the trick is combining love and compassion with Emptiness.

No it isnt.
Compassion is a natural part of the wisdom that realizes emptiness.
There is no construct or "combining" that occurs.
This idea might work for new ageys like Tolle but its not how we understand Buddhahood.

[Rael]

Enlightenment is when you can combine compassion with sunyata....

it's not enough to understand Sunyata and become nihilistic...

the trick is combining love and compassion with Emptiness.

No it isnt.
Compassion is a natural part of the wisdom that realizes emptiness. Or ones true nature.
There is no construct or "combining" that occurs.
This idea might work for new ageys like Tolle but its not how we understand Buddhahood.

Really that came from a really high source....care to knock it with some lucidity...

[Malcolm]

Namdrol i think you want to be a mod...
from your e-sangha comment...and member ridicule fun stuff deal....

Not on your life. Being a moderator is just a headache. People engage in amazingly irrational projections about your person, etc.

Anyway Rael,I did not ridicule anyone's person, though I did offer my thoughts about ram peshwar's ridiculously sexist post.

[Rael]

Enlightenment is when you can combine compassion with sunyata....

it's not enough to understand Sunyata and become nihilistic...

the trick is combining love and compassion with Emptiness.

No it isnt.
Compassion is a natural part of the wisdom that realizes emptiness.
There is no construct or "combining" that occurs.
This idea might work for new ageys like Tolle but its not how we understand Buddhahood.

ah the purity card....heh heheh......

there is a danger in discovering sunyata and that one is total nihilism....temper it with compassion and voila....

one must temper it ....

lol...your funny....

[Rael]

Namdrol i think you want to be a mod...
from your e-sangha comment...and member ridicule fun stuff deal....

Not on your life. Being a moderator is just a headache. People engage in amazingly irrational projections about your person, etc.

Anyway Rael,I did not ridicule anyone's person, though I did offer my thoughts about ram peshwar's ridiculously sexist post.

i actually was helping you dude....*eyelash flutters*

the rumor mill is awash...

as per the rest...i'll leave it up to a mod...


your well liked Namdrol...your an asset to the forum....i for see a lot of fun times...did i tell you i'm mad as a march hare...and speak me mind far to openly...lol...in real life too it seems

modding is such sweet sorrow...i loathe it .... ....lol

welcome a bored