forestofclarity

Interesting. I was raised Catholic and actually became quite deeply involved with Christianity in my late teens. I took refuge as a Buddhist about 15 years ago. I still like to dip into the Christian pool from time to time, especially the works of David Bentley Hart. I like the mystics, but I can no longer understand the lay believer. But I was listening to an old high school friend who is now a pastor on a podcast. He was meeting with another pastor. The first thing they said was "Well, what do you believe?" It seemed so strange to me. They then proceeding to discuss their beliefs intellectually, referring to the Bible. The whole thing struck me as surreal. Usually, when I meet other spiritual practitioners, we typically talk experiences. It seemed weird to hear people discuss things that were so far from their daily experience (such as whether Jesus did such and such or Paul said so and so). They spent a lot of time discussing whether the Bible taught whether people were chosen to be saved or not. I don't know about that. When I was a young Catholic, I felt guilty a lot. A LOT. As a Buddhist, I never feel guilty. I may feel ignorant, or non-compassionate, or detached, or miserable but not guilty. As a Catholic, that mankind was inherently impure and could only be cured through the sacrifice of God's blood. As a Buddhist, I have come to realize that people are inherently good, and that right or wrong are a matter of perception. It is not a matter of sin but of ignorance. I'm sure there are some Buddhists who fall in the same sort of Catholic line, but not the ones I have known. When I took refuge, the nun explained that if you were trying to quit drinking, and you cut down from drinking 7 beers a day to 6, you were making progress. As a Catholic, a sin was a sin. End of story. So I would warrant that you're reading "sin" awfully broadly. Every spiritual system identifies an issue--- even the Daoists. Otherwise, what is the point of cultivating?

That sounds interesting. Too often in internal arts circles it seems to set the person against the flow of the world-- absorbing, expanding, dominating. The emphasis on surrender sounds very appealing.

@Walker, tall tales aside, do you have any thoughts on his methods? Legit or bullshido?

From her Facebook: Since my Yigong teacher passed away, I can say now that I am the Yigong lineage holder, but so what? I am many things with countless encounters in this world; it does not mean I have to take every encounter to be my responsibility. All the practices, if there are true practitioners out there and take their practice seriously, there is no practice will be lost. You will be taught in unexpected ways. A teacher will be looking for you. If all the practices are out there but no one in their heart has any of its essence, that practice has already vanished from this world. Form does not mean much without essence and its manifestation. What people want is one thing, what people can give to obtain it is another. A spiritual practice is not a wanting method to soothe one’s momentary needs. Who cares one’s changeable needs? That is a root of suffering. All existence is based on needs and conditions. I learned by my own experience. If you are ready, you will not be passed over. Even humans do not see you, a higher being will find you, because your causal body is glowing which cannot be missed. Be a good practitioner. First of all, try to possess a good human quality: be honest, sincere, truthful, devoted, dedicated, trustworthy, kind and wise and persevere…

To fill out my internet research, I would point out that SF Jane (i.e. Jane Alexander) stated that she cured herself of serious mental illness using Frantzis' methods. There are some reports online of healing as well. Over at rumsoakedfist, some people were impressed with him and some were not. Many of his detractors indicate that he has some ability. I am surprised that he has been around for so long and there is so little on him. The class I would take is with one of his students. You are right--- I may have to decide for myself and provide a report. He is also a Dzogchen practitioner and appears to be focusing more on meditation/healing, which is appealing to me. Sifu Jenny has stopped teaching completely and now only practices Buddhism. Some people have asked her to pass down the arts she knows, but she is not interested.

Denver, but not far from Boulder.

Well there appears to be quite a split. He does seem like a polarizing figure. Some folks spoke well of him in the early days of TTB. He does strike me in some ways as being overtly commercialistic and often arrogant, but I also feel there may be something there. Maybe not. Well, the intro is qigong and wu tai chi. I have had a taste of Tai Chi and Xing Yi, but I am not going to spend enough time practicing to really get any benefits. To be completely honest, I haven't found qigong to be useful either, but that may be due to laziness or lack of good teaching. I know that there's something there, but it is hard to find. May I ask if this is from personal experience?

The issue with paths is that they need to be taken on their own. I think there is a fine line between finding a path that fits you, and trying to fit a path into one's preconceived concepts. Buddhist meditation practices, at least according to my teachers (inc ChNNR), developed within a Buddhist framework. That means a strong emphasis on emptiness and not self, which can be subtle and quite difficult. So difficult that the Buddha almost didn't even teach. ChNNR did have a lot of respect for Bon Dzogchen. He also had a lot of respect for Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, who has at least three sons who carry on his style. Arranged from most to least traditional, they are Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche, Mingyur Rinpoche, and Tsoknyi Rinpoche. In addition to TWR, you may want to check these teachers out. Chokyi Nyima allegedly did a webcast pointing out last year, but I did not receive it. The other two require in person pointing out. I actually think if you are serious about this, it is better to get pointing out in person in a retreat setting. I also cannot explain it, but there does seem to be something transmitted by taking a formal empowerment in a Buddhist tradition. If you have an established Platonic outlook, I think there may be issues down the road if you try to reconcile Plato with Buddha. The closest thing you find in ancient Greece to a Buddhist outlook in Pyrrhonism. As far as I know, Pyrrhonism formed the basis for Skepticism, which pretty much overtook Plato's academy in its later years and forced neo-Platonism out. However, Buddhist and Hindu Tantra developed around the same time and area, and took off in separate directions. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of realized teachers who teach non-dual Shaiva Tantra, but there are some and they may be worth checking out. The most accessible non-dual tradition from the Indian matrix that is still alive, outside of Buddhism, is probably Advaita Vedanta. If you are at all interested in Advaita, you can start at home with the large body of videos by Swami Sarvapriyananda.

The Importance of Anatman/Anatta in Buddhism Many people question whether the Buddha secretly taught a self. Although the vast majority of Buddhists suttas and sutras deny the existence of a self, some people believe that this is a provisional teaching and not to be taken as an ultimate teaching. I offer some conceptual thoughts on the matter, understanding that concepts cannot really capture the teaching. After many years of study with great masters, I have come to realize that not only is no self important to Buddhism, it is at the very heart of the teachings. I encourage people who are really interested to find a proper teacher and practice to fruition. 1. From a Mahayana point of view, the self is empty. People often mistake “emptiness” and think “nothingness.” In English, when we say the glass is empty, we mean nothing is in the glass. But this is not what the Buddhists mean. Buddhist usually explain emptiness in one of two ways: a. Emptiness means the lack of an independent, unitary, permanent self. b. Emptiness means that what appears is not graspable. These two are not opposed. If something is graspable, then it would have an independent, unitary, permanent self. Likewise, if something has an independent, unitary, permanent self, it should be graspable. If we can grasp something, it should be fixed and findable. 2. The first consequence of emptiness is change or impermanence. Because nothing is fixed, everything changes. If things has fixed, permanent selves, they would not change (i.e. they would be permanent). In other words, ice would always be ice. Atoms couldn’t change position or move. Our bodies would never age, grow sick, or die. From a spiritual point of view, this is good news. If a person is ignorant, such a person would always be ignorant. If a person is bound, such a person would always be bound. But because these things are empty, this is not the case. Freedom is possible. Even more important, creation is possible. From a Buddhist point of view, because there is nothing fixed, anything can arise. In this case, the universe has arisen. 3. The second consequence of emptiness is dependent origination. Dependent origination means that everything is interdependent. Remember, emptiness means there is no independent self. If things were independent, they could not have any effect on one another. An ice cube in a glass would never melt, or cool the ice because the ice would always be ice and the water would always be water at a certain temperature. Consider all the causes and conditions that led me to write this and you to read it: first we need a universe, a sun, the earth, a body, parents, civilization, etc. Everything has come together to produce this moment. Emptiness allows for relationship. Without emptiness, two things would never relate to one another. Things would either be permanently the same, or permanently different. There could be no interaction. 4. The third consequence of emptiness is karma. Actions have consequences. If people had fixed, permanent, immutable selves, then there would be no point in spiritual practice. One would be as one is, and there is nothing that can be done about. There would be no problem with murder, theft, and lying. 5. The fourth consequence of emptiness is dissatisfaction, or dukkha. Because nothing is permanent, nothing can give us permanent satisfaction. 6. The fifth consequence of emptiness are the Four Noble Truths. The Four Noble truths state that there is suffering, there is a cause for suffering, there is a cessation to suffering, and there is a way to end suffering. From a Buddhist point of view, the problem is clinging and grasping. However, because things are empty, we cannot cling or grasp onto them. This fundamental ignorance is the cause of suffering. Accordingly, we try to cling and grasp onto what cannot be clung to or grasped. The solution in this case is to see things are they are (empty) and cease clinging and grasping (cessation). 7. As stated, emptiness is also not nothingness--- this would be nihilism. So how to things appear? The typical Buddhist examples are to compare the mind to space and phenomenon to a dream. a. The mind is compared to space. It has no fixed characteristics. Because it has no fixed characteristics, anything can appear. Unlike space, the mind has an ability to know the objects that arise within it. Some people are unable to understand this, because they think that one prevents the others. If the mind knows, it must have a self. Or if it is empty of characteristics, it must know. However, experience shows that this is not the case: the mind is empty, and yet it knows. Consider the electron that can appear sometimes as a wave and sometimes as a photon. Things don’t always fit into tidy boxes. b. Objects are compared to dreams. When we dream at night, we may have bodies, eat, swim, run and play like we would normally do. The substance of dreams and the substance of the waking state are the same: we experience colors, sounds, sensations and so on. However, it is easy to see that a dream is completely unreal. Accordingly, the doctrine of emptiness is woven very deeply into Buddhist teachings. If we eliminate emptiness and no self, then the entire teaching is incoherent. There is a lot of resistance to some of these Buddhist teachings. One of my teachers has said that when we find resistance to a teaching, we often find the ego trying to steer us away from teachings that threaten it. And there is no more threatening teaching to the ego than no self. I know other paths take other approaches. I am not putting forth the Buddhist path as the supreme or only path, but only as one possibility.

I'm at a certain age now to have lived through several moral panics. The following have all been blamed for violence in my lifetime: - Dungeons & Dragons - Heavy Metal - Rap music - television - movies - video games Usually, the culprit is often linked to thing young people like to do. Quite frankly, by now the world should have been destroyed by millions of psychopaths who grew up in the 1980s and 1990s. But instead, violent crimes are down in the U.S.: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/ Maybe video games lead to decreased violence? It appears the whole thing is a myth. It is an easy talking point to deflect from the real issue, in my opinion, which is gun control: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/analysis-why-its-time-to-stop-blaming-video-games-for-real-world-violence

Well, I don't really want to push an argument with other Buddhists. So rather that pursue the argument, I want to tell a story. The whole self/no-self issue has been at the core of my spiritual journey. When I started as a Buddhist, I spend quite a lot of time at Bhante Gunaratana's retreat center. They have a giant wooden Buddha with a sly smile of his face in their meditation hall. One of my early teachers said "the purpose of the Buddha's teaching is to trick the mind out of the mind" and "there is no subject knowing an object, or an object known by a subject. There is only knowing." I did not know what he meant, but I was sure that the teachings on anatta (anatman) were false. They had to be false, right? I mean, what could be more obvious than our own existence? Cogito ergo sum. Or more precisely, ego sum. He also said there comes a time when you develop complete faith in the Buddha's teaching. It is one of the fetters in Theravada. But I had doubts. But every time I tried to find the self, I felt haunted by the sly smile of the Buddha. And I searched high and wide to get to the bottom of this issue. Since having a self was so obvious, why did the Buddha deny it? And why make it so central to his teaching? I sat with, studied, harangued, and harassed any number of lamas, roshis, acharyas, khenpos, bhikkhus and spiritual friends. I saw red robes, brown robes, black robes, and plain Western clothes. I sat many retreats and practiced. I investigated koans. I just sat. I took many teachings and read many books. Here and there, I would find a glimmer of self--- the tathagatagarbha perhaps, a strange Zen statement, an occasional monk. There are Buddhists who don't want to take their anatman maximum strength, and try to find a compromise. But when I talked to teachers I really trusted, they all said the same thing: THERE IS NO SELF. Finally, I stopped looking for a self, or for a no self. Rather, I relaxed and followed the teachers instructions. Instead of looking for answers, I asked questions. Instead of questioning teachings, I applied them. And what I found: THERE IS NO SELF! YOU WERE RIGHT YOU STUPID OLD BUDDHA! So when you say there is a self, or that the mind is real and so on, you might as well tell me I have two heads. While I am very far from Buddhahood, or even the first bhumi, I have no doubt about what the Buddha taught. I can look as see the truth whenever I want. In addition, I have complete faith in what my teachers have taught me. Finally, I have confidence in the lineage.

I don't think there is anything wrong with asking questions, or even questioning Buddhism. My personal, subjective sense of your posts was that you were not so much interested in learning about Buddhism, but rather you wished to fit Buddhism into a model you had already constructed. The tricky thing about Buddhism is the language and the many traditions. The same words mean different things in different contexts. In other words, there is a type of secret code that is usually only explained in person by a teacher. Not only that, but the meanings are very contextual--- words don't stand by themselves. They are a part of an interconnected web of meanings. One reason why Tibetan Buddhists study so many Buddhist philosophies is to tease apart these meanings and avoid the numerous pitfalls to spiritual practice. It gets even more confusing with the same word is used by other traditions. For example, atman in a Yogacara Buddhist context merely refers to the (illusory) subjective side of experience. But in Vedanta, the meaning is much different-- atman is Brahman for example. In addition, atman can also just mean the mere "I" as in "I walked to the store." Some people hear the Buddha in the Pali Canon saying atta (Pali for atman), atta and think that means he is obsessed with a permanent soul! Many Vedantins and Shaivites that I've known and studied with have taught that emptiness is Buddhism is roughly equivalent to the experience of the anandamaya kosha or causal body. Yet this would be roughly equivalent to the alaya vijnana in Mahayana Buddhism, which is clearly a state of ignornace. But then vijnana is Vedanta may refer to something else--- a specific part of the mind for example (vijnanamaya kosha). Then the alaya vijnana may mean something else entirely in Kagyu Mahamudra. And it gets even more confusing in Pali, because the equivalent for manas, citta, and vijnana are all mixed up, but these have precise definitions in Vedanta. So you can see, it can be quite challenging without the guidance of an experienced teacher. And given the ambiguity of the words, it is easy enough to read what we want into them. [snip]

You're welcome and I thank you for your forbearance. Of course, it really isn't for you--- I am sure that you have thoroughly vetted your views with your teacher(s) before publicly proliferating them. But there are people on the forum who are interested in Buddhism but have not yet engaged in a teacher, or do not wish to. In addition, many members here seem eager to find evidence that Buddhism teaches a permanent, true, soul. In addition, copying the words of teachers I admire is always an education for me.

I have not heard that emptiness teachings are provisional. I tend to focus primarily on the Kagyu school, where it is quite clear that emptiness teachings are not provisional. However, I have had great fortune to take Dzogchen teachings from several teachers. Of course, I will not share the secrets they revealed, but I can share some public information from both schools in widely available books. Perhaps your teacher(s) do teach that emptiness is merely provisional, and mind ultimately exists. Would you be willing to share with me which teachers have taught so? Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche: https://buddhismnow.com/2013/05/11/recognising-the-thinker-by-tulku-urgyen-rinpoche/ His son, Tsoknyi Rinpoche: https://tsoknyirinpoche.org/9182/two-truths/ Ju Mipham, when analyzing the Mind Only view that asserts the mind truly exists, states: From Light of Wisdom, Commentary on Distinguishing Phenomenon and Suchness, 626-27, trans. Duckworth He also tied emptiness to both the Madhyamaka path and purity in his Beacon of Certainty, trans. Petit: To add in some other commentary by Kagyus who follow the Shentong view of emptiness: In Buddhanature, p.343 Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche writes: Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche states (in Tony Duff's The Other Emptiness p.178): Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche in Shentong and Rangtong, p.115 says:

May I ask a side question? If you are not a Buddhist, your practices are much different than Buddhism, and I assume you are happy with said tradition and practices, what is the point of wasting time learning about another path? Wouldn't your time and energy be better spent on clarifying and deepening your current path? I say that because an unwillingness to engage in Buddhism on its own terms, coupled with a demand that it disclose to you its precious secrets, is a bit---- misguided? Having said that, Tibetan Buddhism is not anti-conceptual. In fact, obtaining the proper concepts is considered quite essential to reaching the proper non-conceptual. Of course it must be so or we would be enlightened when we went into deep sleep, or a drunk stupor, or some similar state.

That's an interesting thing to say, CT. A few questions and points of clarification: 1. You state that Tantra can enhance anyone's path. Accordingly, it would seem to follow that one may safely remove it from the Buddhist path-- i.e the teachings on morality, refuge, the Bodhisattva vow, bodhicitta, and so on--- and inserted into any religious path. You do not view the Buddhist path as an organic one, with its own rules and logic that should be followed? And that any spiritual traditional provides the proper context for Tantric practice? I must say this is an astounding conclusion! 2. You state that all is mind is a finality. Do you find that emptiness is then a merely provisional teaching? If so, are you following Dolpopa? Or perhaps a more traditional Yogacara point of view? That would be an interesting position for a Dzogchenpa. 3. Jamgon Mipham Rinpoche famously held that proper concepts were necessary to point to the non-conceptual ultimate, and that without proper concepts, reaching the nonconceptual ultimate would be impossible for nearly everyone. Do you disagree with him? If not, do you find that I am misstating his position? If you do not disagree, does that modify your position? I know my position is going to be widely unpopular in this modern age and specifically on this forum, but it seems to me that a tradition should be best approached on its own, without viewing it through the conceptual filters of other traditions. In other words, we should not mix them up based on personal preference. I wish there were an anti-like button so I could measure how unpopular such a position would be.

If you want to see as a Buddha sees, there is only one way: become a Buddha. Building a mental model of a state that is beyond conception is not going to be helpful. I think a lot of confusion arises when we start at the most subtle teachings without first cultivating other teachings, like Abhidharma and Madhyamika. YMMV.

This raises a few interesting issues. First, Tantric Buddhism isn't really about learning to control underlying energy flows in my opinion--- energy work may be one part of a part of it (by this, I mean completion stage with characteristics), but definitely not the only or even the most important point. Moreover, Tantric Buddhism is one part of an entire path. Unless one is interested in Buddhism generally, I don't think there will be much use in the Tantric portion. In other words, I don't think one can practice deity yoga apart from the other practices. I have posted a summary below of deity practice from an experienced Western teacher to give a brief overview. Second, I think one would find a great deal of difficulty integrating Vajrayana Buddhist and Christian practice. Many Mahayana practitioners would likely consider Christianity to be a form of eternalism, as it usually teaches about a permanent God and soul. Of course, how God and soul are glossed in Christianity is varied and vast, but the traditional teachings and sources tend to be quite dualistic. In addition, most Christian practitioners I know of in the end tend to compromise Buddhism in favor of Christianity or vice versa. However, at least one famous teacher had many Christian students (Chogyal Namkhai Norbu). Third, one of the hallmarks of the India-based religions is that you have three prongs: teacher, personal experience, and tradition. The tradition and personal experience prevent you from getting caught up with a bad teacher. The teacher and tradition prevent you from getting caught up in your own mind. And the teacher and personal experience is what actually brings the tradition to life. Does mystical Christianity have a similar tradition that performs such a check (outside of becoming a monk in Mt. Athos)? Though there are many different styles of practice in this vehicle, the development stage and completion stage are often viewed as the hallmarks of tantric practice. The development stage uses visualization, mantra recitation, and deep states of concentration to disrupt the habitual tendency to view the world and its inhabitants as impure and truly existent. The imaginary process of visualizing oneself as a deity in a pure realm, for example, allows the practitioner to experience directly the fluid, ethereal nature of perception. The completion stage has two components: the conceptual completion stage and nonconceptual completion stage. The first aims to harness the subtle energies of the body and consciously bring them into the central channel. These practices, which often involve intense yogic postures, focus on the link between the energetic body and the mind, the idea being that by controlling the former one will be able to undo the negative conditioning of the latter. The nonconceptual completion stage, by contrast, is an effortless approach. Often associated with the Great Perfection and Mahamudra, this form of completion stage practice emphasizes recognizing the nature of mind and experiencing its pure expressions without the filter of dualistic fixation. The gateway to tantric practice is empowerment, or abhisheka. Conferred by a guru, empowerments authorize students to practice the teachings of the Vajra Vehicle. Each lineage and style of practice has its own unique empowerments, which are said to “ripen” the students’ entire being and prepare them for tantric practice. The commitments of each empowerment are known as samaya vows. https://learning.tergar.org/2011/11/18/the-nine-yanas/

Madhyamaka Buddhism denies that there is anything as a self. So what you're asking here is if there is one self or many selves? The answer is neither--- there aren't any selves. But that doesn't mean there's nothing--- obviously, there is a quite a lot happening. The problem is that the mind likes to divide things into neat, crisp categories but things don't work that way. In fact, from a Madhyamaka Buddhist POV, our intuitions are the opposite of how things are. We think if there are no selves underneath the surface, no bones or structure to reality so to speak, everything falls apart. But it is only because there are no selves that change and transformation are even possible. It reminds me of the particle/wave issue with photons in quantum physics. Is a photon a particle or a wave? Well, sometimes it acts like a photon, and sometimes it acts like a wave. It doesn't fit into our mental boxes, but that doesn't make it any less true. CTR has a good reputation in India/Nepal apparently.

This very notion is dismantled in the Madhyamaka argument called “neither one nor many.” From a Buddhist POV, you cannot even establish a single thing, so talk of one and many becomes incoherent in the context of emptiness.

I don't know about that. Most modern Buddhists would probably say that Abhidharma provides the underlying conceptual framework for Buddhism the way Samkhya does for some Hindu schools of thought. However, even within Buddhism the same terms can have different meanings depending on tradition and context. Abhidharma doesn't use the koshas, the gunas, the same ideas of causation, etc. Adbhidharma starts is very based in experience and doesn't really have the similar speculative metaphysics that you find in many of the Hindu school. Abhidharma is also fundamentally deconstructionist-- everything is broken into parts, wholes are generally denied, and the fundamental marks of existence are impermanence, dissatisfaction, and no-self. Early Buddhism is shockingly atomistic--- a point often seized upon by Hindu critics. I would certainly be up to seeing some comparisons as I just got a new Abhidharma book. FWIW, I think the kosha model is a good and useful one, but quite different from the skandhas.

The analysis is not fully correct: the realization of the futility of the world is in fact something to note from a spiritual perspective. In fact, many traditions indicate that this is absolutely essential for any spiritual progress. In Buddhism, it is summarized by the First Noble Truth that there is suffering. It is this very suffering that makes it possible to turn away from the world at all. The issue with suicide is that there is an assumption that death is somehow an end or a cessation. However, nothing really begins or truly ends. The entire cosmos is in constant transformation. From a Tibetan Buddhist point of view, death is not unlike going to sleep. When we go to sleep, there is often a period of darkness and forgetting. Based on this experience during the dying process, we think that is the end. But if death is truly like sleep, after this initial period of unconsciousness, we will rise again in a dream. After the dream, we are reborn again into the world. Similarly, the it is taught that the dying process is the same. An initial cessation, dreamlike experiences, and a rebirth. Similarly, no matter how depressed or how much pain we are in, it is not a part of our true nature. Again, we experience this every night when we go into deep dreamless sleep. We let go of everything. Pain is transient. Because of this, it is possible to find an end to suffering. The only way to end suffering is to remove our ignorance that is the cause of it. Having been born in this time and in this place, with an interest in spirituality, and to see the futility of attachment and playing in the red dust of the world can be a great fortune. The curse can become a blessing showing us the way out. I would challenge anyone on this board who feels the same way as the OP to use this as an opportunity to choose a tradition and practice in it. Whether it is Buddhism, Vedanta, Daoism, or an another practice that has a proven record of liberation. Follow a single path, preferably with a single teacher, and do what they tell you to do. Having come to the conclusion that life is meaningless, please seek out and find a teacher you can learn from. Make it your life. See what happens. The result may be very surprising. I guarantee you will not regret it.

The word that came to mind for me was "solidarity." Way back in the late 1800's to early 1900's, the French sociologist Emile Durkheim was warning about how solidarity was going from what he called mechanical to organic solidarity (if I recall correctly). In mechanical solidarity, each person was important, irreplaceable. Whereas in organic solidarity, you can cut out a person easily. He mused that this led to increased suicide rates. The terms may have made sense in his day, but today I would think the terms should be reversed--- old societies were well-connected and "organic" whereas modern societies are more "mechanical." The word used by military people to describe the unique structure of military culture is "camaraderie."

I don't know the causes behind the way you are posting here, but rest assured that the peace and happiness we seek is not found in using harsh speech with strangers on the internet. It is not wise, skillful, funny, or socially decent. It seems that you have a strong connection with Buddhism --- a negative connection is still a connection. If you want to uncover its treasures, you would need to find the right teacher (for you) who can guide you to the proper realization. If it doesn't suit you, then there is no use in trying to sow doubt among others--- I would suggest simply moving on to a tradition or a teacher who can give you teachings you can use and apply.

Perhaps a new thread?