Ruthless Truth

[xabir2005]

Ciaran teaches a direct inquiry into discovering the absence of self.

 

See: http://ruthlesstruthdotcom.blogspot.com/2010/10/thunder-and-sunshine.html

 

 

Blog: http://www.ruthlesstruthdotcom.blogspot.com/

Forum: http://www.ruthlesstruth.com/arena/

[Otis]

Hmm.... ... with all due respect,

 

I've spent the last hour or so looking around at his site and conversations, and I guess I'm not seeing the worth in it. I wanted to like it, because I've enjoyed your posts, but it's a whole lot of unpleasantness for one epiphany that doesn't seem that incredibly deep.

 

Yes, I agree that that "I" am an illusion (as a being in any way other than just life itself), and it is surrender of this concept of "I" that opens me to the next step, but that is still just one step along the way. How about surrendering "you"? Ciaran seems totally wrapped up in the "you" delusion (which is, IME, deeper and more toxic than the "I" delusion). How about surrender of perspective? How about surrender of controlling the body? Of controlling the life? Surrender of habit, panic and avoidance? Surrender of yardsticks and hierarchy? Surrender of being right?

 

Humility is not just something that enlightened people are "supposed to do". Humility is the exact action of surrendering the "I".

 

I don't hear anything deeper than "you don't exist" on the site (maybe I haven't found it yet). And the rants are too painful to sit through. I don't know if this guy is enlightened or not, and I don't care. Because he comes across as a miserable human being, and no more insightful than your average troll. I don't recognize any freedom in his words, only attachment to the concept of non-self.

 

Can you at least point the way to something specific that you find worthwhile on the site?

[Encephalon]

I'm partial to a study of the Three Marks of Existence, those being anatta (egolessness), annica (impermanance) and dukkha (suffering, or anguish, despair) in their original tripartite form, and then breaking it down after acquiring some understanding of their context and relationship. I didn't do this as a much younger student and it didn't work out so well.

Although I don't subscribe to Pema Codron's lineage of Tibetan Buddhism, I really dig her writing, and the following link has a beautiful rendition of the 3 Marks. On your mark... get set...

http://www.shambhala...three-marks.cfm

 

Although I have to say that I am indebted to David Loy and Stephen Batchelor for their work on anatta in my other post

[xabir2005]

I'm partial to a study of the Three Marks of Existence, those being anatta (egolessness), annica (impermanance) and dukkha (suffering, or anguish, despair) in their original tripartite form, and then breaking it down after acquiring some understanding of their context and relationship. I didn't do this as a much younger student and it didn't work out so well.

Although I don't subscribe to Pema Codron's lineage of Tibetan Buddhism, I really dig her writing, and the following link has a beautiful rendition of the 3 Marks. On your mark... get set...

http://www.shambhala...three-marks.cfm

 

Although I have to say that I am indebted to David Loy and Stephen Batchelor for their work on anatta in my other post

My personal experience is to realize anatta first, then anicca and dukkha becomes clearer. IMO this is better since Anicca can be understood in a wrong way (i.e. disassociatively) if Anatta realization has not occurrede.

 

Anicca in particular has a very different significance after realizing anatta. It is not the same as observing the arising and passing in vipassana... rather it becomes the realization of everything as being insubstantial, bubble-like, dream-like, disjointed, unsupported, and self-releasing.

 

Without a base, every sound, thought, etc, self-releases without leaving traces...

 

p.s. read (especially part 3) this article: http://awakeningtore...d-non-dual.html

[xabir2005]

Hmm.... ... with all due respect,

 

I've spent the last hour or so looking around at his site and conversations, and I guess I'm not seeing the worth in it. I wanted to like it, because I've enjoyed your posts, but it's a whole lot of unpleasantness for one epiphany that doesn't seem that incredibly deep.

Ciaran has changed in behaviour for the better, recently. He also had deepened his understanding of the power of latent tendencies (the 'fictional self').

Yes, I agree that that "I" am an illusion (as a being in any way other than just life itself), and it is surrender of this concept of "I" that opens me to the next step,

No, it's not about surrendering but deeply realising the falsity of a self... that there is in seeing just the seen, no seer, in hearing just the heard, no hearer.

 

But yes after seeing the falsity of it, you are naturally inclined to open completely to everything without conceptual filtering and the filter of the sense of a self.

How about surrender of perspective? How about surrender of controlling the body? Of controlling the life? Surrender of habit, panic and avoidance? Surrender of yardsticks and hierarchy? Surrender of being right?

 

Humility is not just something that enlightened people are "supposed to do". Humility is the exact action of surrendering the "I".

Maybe this explains it:

 

(Thusness)

Hi Simpo,

 

How have you been getting on? I am planning for my retirement.

 

 

I think after stabilizing non-dual experience and maturing the insight of anatta, practice must turn towards ‘self-releasing’ and ‘dispassion’ rather than intensifying‘non-dual’ luminosity. Although being bare in attention or naked in awareness will help in dissolving the sense of ‘I’ and division, we must also look into dissolving the sense of ‘mine’. In my opinion, dissolving of the sense of ‘I’ does not equate to dissolving the sense of ‘mine’ and attachment to possessions can still be strong even after very stable non-dual experience. This is because the former realization only mange to eliminate the dualistic tendency while the latter requires us to embody and actualize the right view of ‘emptiness’. Very seldom do we realize it has a lot to do with our ‘view’ that we hold in our deep most consciousness. We must allow our luminous essence to meet differing conditions to realise the latent deep. All our body cells are imprinted and hardwired to ‘hold’. Not to under-estimate it. :-)

 

 

I don't hear anything deeper than "you don't exist" on the site (maybe I haven't found it yet).

There are two points. The "you don't exist" is his original realization. More recently, he realized something new. He became awed at the power of the latent tendencies (though he didn't realized it was latent tendencies) which he calls the 'real fictional self' - See http://brazenclarity...-and-stuff.html

And the rants are too painful to sit through. I don't know if this guy is enlightened or not, and I don't care. Because he comes across as a miserable human being, and no more insightful than your average troll. I don't recognize any freedom in his words, only attachment to the concept of non-self.

 

Can you at least point the way to something specific that you find worthwhile on the site?

Let's not assume that because he appears brutal in his approach at hammering certain things at people, it therefore means he is a 'miserable human being'. I doubt he is. His ruthless approach has been successful and helped many people become awake. Sometimes to wake someone up, rather than indulging in people's crap and let them dream on, you need to give them one tight slap.

 

Let's not forget that Zen masters of the old do beat the crap out of their students, sometimes, and it just so happens many students woke up right then.

[Encephalon]

My personal experience is to realize anatta first, then anicca and dukkha becomes clearer. IMO this is better since Anicca can be understood in a wrong way (i.e. disassociatively) if Anatta realization has not occurrede.

 

Anicca in particular has a very different significance after realizing anatta. It is not the same as observing the arising and passing in vipassana... rather it becomes the realization of everything as being insubstantial, bubble-like, dream-like, disjointed, unsupported, and self-releasing.

 

Without a base, every sound, thought, etc, self-releases without leaving traces...

 

p.s. read (especially part 3) this article: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/realization-and-experience-and-non-dual.html

 

I think that makes a lot of sense.

[Otis]

OK, I'm glad you got something out of it. If you ever feel like sharing a specific gem from the site, let me know.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

I've been banned from the site for asking questions Cirian couldn't answer, and which caused his mindless puppets to waver from his control, but.. feel free to check out the exchanges, same handle as here, tzujanli.. Cirian will not address the critical flaw in his belief.. if there is not a 'you', why are there nearly 7 Billion of them?

 

Be well..

[xabir2005]

Greetings..

 

I've been banned from the site for asking questions Cirian couldn't answer, and which caused his mindless puppets to waver from his control, but.. feel free to check out the exchanges, same handle as here, tzujanli.. Cirian will not address the critical flaw in his belief.. if there is not a 'you', why are there nearly 7 Billion of them?

 

Be well..

There is no self, much less 7 Billion selves. But yes, there are (almost - as a minority have awakened) 7 billion beings deluded into the view of self.

 

It is via latent tendencies... from young we are conditioned and learnt to view self and things as being inherently existing. Coincidentally, I just read this from Ven Gunaratana just now:

 

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe1-4.html

 

From the Buddhist point of view, we human beings live in a very peculiar fashion. We view impermanent things as permanent, though everything is changing all around us. The process of change is constant and eternal. As you read these words, your body is aging. But you pay no attention to that. The book in you hand is decaying. The print is fading and the pages are becoming brittle. The walls around you are aging. The molecules within those walls are vibrating at an enormous rate, and everything is shifting, going to pieces and dissolving slowly. You pay no attention to that, either. Then one day you look around you. Your body is wrinkled and squeaky and you hurt. The book is a yellowed, useless lump; the building is caving in. So you pine for lost youth and you cry when the possessions are gone. Where does this pain come from? It comes from your own inattention. You failed to look closely at life. You failed to observe the constantly shifting flow of the world as it went by. You set up a collection of mental constructions, 'me', 'the book', 'the building', and you assume that they would endure forever. They never do. But you can tune into the constantly ongoing change. You can learn to perceive your life as an ever- flowing movement, a thing of great beauty like a dance or symphony. You can learn to take joy in the perpetual passing away of all phenomena. You can learn to live with the flow of existence rather than running perpetually against the grain. You can learn this. It is just a matter of time and training.

 

Our human perceptual habits are remarkably stupid in some ways. We tune out 99% of all the sensory stimuli we actually receive, and we solidify the remainder into discrete mental objects. Then we react to those mental objects in programmed habitual ways. An example: There you are, sitting alone in the stillness of a peaceful night. A dog barks in the distance. The perception itself is indescribably beautiful if you bother to examine it. Up out of that sea of silence come surging waves of sonic vibration. You start to hear the lovely complex patterns, and they are turned into scintillating electronic stimulations within the nervous system. The process is beautiful and fulfilling in itself. We humans tend to ignore it totally. Instead, we solidify that perception into a mental object. We paste a mental picture on it and we launch into a series of emotional and conceptual reactions to it. "There is that dog again. He is always barking at night. What a nuisance. Every night he is a real bother. Somebody should do something. Maybe I should call a cop. No, a dog catcher. So, I'll call the pound. No, maybe I'll just write a real nasty letter to the guy who owns that dog. No, too much trouble. I'll just get an ear plug." They are just perceptual and mental habits. You learn to respond this way as a child by copying the perceptual habits of those around you. These perceptual responses are not inherent in the structure of the nervous system. The circuits are there. But this is not the only way that our mental machinery can be used. That which has been learned can be unlearned. The first step is to realize what you are doing, as you are doing it, and stand back and quietly watch.

[gendao]

Cirian will not address the critical flaw in his belief.. if there is not a 'you', why are there nearly 7 Billion of them?

Well, I can see how there are 7 billion bodies - but no real separate sovereignty within any of them.

 

Same with souls, etc, etc..

 

All the world is like an illusion, but "you" are the real illusion.

 

 

Anyhow, I think nonduality is just the first breakthrough in Enlightenment. He seems very passionate and excited in having reinvented the wheel here. I personally could have done with a far less verbose and more concise explanation of the key points...but his personal experience is nonetheless very useful in describing it with modern "pop cultural" languaging.

 

It's also interesting because it shows how although there is "no sufferer," there is still suffering by this selfless individual that remains. His bleeding ulcer following his pivotal breakthrough was likely a manifestation of the immense amount of rage he had built up inside. And so I think "self"-inquiry for full "self"-integration is still useful in resolving such suffering - that would still be experienced, even if there is no "experiencer."

[C T]

Greetings..

 

I've been banned from the site for asking questions Cirian couldn't answer, and which caused his mindless puppets to waver from his control, but.. feel free to check out the exchanges, same handle as here, tzujanli.. Cirian will not address the critical flaw in his belief.. if there is not a 'you', why are there nearly 7 Billion of them?

 

Be well..

 

You must be rather proud of this.

 

You always come across as someone who knows better, cos your posts often have dark undertones - not sure if this is obvious to you. I wonder what have you really achieved by such remarks, and also, what is your motive here, other than glaringly displaying the well-worn axe you are grinding?

 

 

Your words smacks of arrogance and in no way reflect the spirit of a cultivator of the Tao.

 

Quite disappointing really.

[TzuJanLi]

You must be rather proud of this.

 

You always come across as someone who knows better, cos your posts often have dark undertones - not sure if this is obvious to you. I wonder what have you really achieved by such remarks, and also, what is your motive here, other than glaringly displaying the well-worn axe you are grinding?

 

 

Your words smacks of arrogance and in no way reflect the spirit of a cultivator of the Tao.

Quite disappointing really.

Why do i do this? A Taoist site populated by angry Buddhists, insisting they are the keepers of the 'right way'.. i am pleased that you find your judgement of others so easily, and with such compassion.. but, a "cultivator" of Life (i am not limited by Taoist labeling) simply expresses understanding..

 

Be well..

[Encephalon]

[Otis]

I don't believe than "non-self" is literally true. Nor do I think that's what Buddha was saying.

 

I think what is true is that:

 

The phenomenological experience of my self is an illusion. What I experience as "me" is merely a cluster of habituated functions of my brain. There is a lot more to this organism, then the tiny bit that I experience as me. I do not have "my" self or "my" body, because the functions that feel like "I" are just one small part of the brain, which is one part of the body. The body is "real", but it is also unknowable to "me". What "I" experience is not the actual world, but a simulacrum of the world that my senses (including the parts of my brain that translate sense data into perception) and heuristics re-create inside my brain. It is only this simulacrum that the "I" experiences, and which it mis-interprets as the actual world. This is the only reality that "I" can ever know, the one that is inside my head, because "I" have no senses; I have only access to the data stream that my body's senses bring me. This simulacrum includes my concept/experience of myself, as well as my concept/experience of the body.

 

On a phenomenological level, "I" appear to be a self, separate from life, as if life was something that happens to "me". But, of course, there is no "me" separate from "my" life. For all intents and purposes, "my life" and "me" are the exact same things. To forget this is to live in the 3rd person, to try to "see myself" as if from someone else's point of view: i.e. how do I appear, what should I do? But to live in the 1st person is to see no separation between myself and my life (and hence, also between myself and the world), and thus, never to feel alienated from the flow that is life.

 

The continuance of the "I" is an addiction to control, because the function that "I" was designed for, was really just paying attention. Once I learn to just pay attention, without adding all the separation, judging, and analyzing that "I" have previously relied on, then the experience of "I" folds up, and the body continues being its own Self, without "me". If I allow "myself" to be a conduit for awareness, instead of a "self", then the body is free to live its life, with my assistance, but not my interference.

 

"No self" points at the above, but I think it shouldn't be mistaken for "what's real". It is a phenomenological "truth", not an actual one. "I" (i.e. the cluster of functions) do still exist (or I wouldn't be aware), just not as a "self", as we normally think of it.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Otis

[Encephalon]

I don't believe than "non-self" is literally true. Nor do I think that's what Buddha was saying.

 

I think what is true is that:

 

The phenomenological experience of my self is an illusion. What I experience as "me" is merely a cluster of habituated functions of my brain. There is a lot more to this organism, then the tiny bit that I experience as me. I do not have "my" self or "my" body, because the functions that feel like "I" are just one small part of the brain, which is one part of the body. The body is "real", but it is also unknowable to "me". What "I" experience is not the actual world, but a simulacrum of the world that my senses (including the parts of my brain that translate sense data into perception) and heuristics re-create inside my brain. It is only this simulacrum that the "I" experiences, and which it mis-interprets as the actual world. This is the only reality that "I" can ever know, the one that is inside my head, because "I" have no senses; I have only access to the data stream that my body's senses bring me. This simulacrum includes my concept/experience of myself, as well as my concept/experience of the body.

 

On a phenomenological level, "I" appear to be a self, separate from life, as if life was something that happens to "me". But, of course, there is no "me" separate from "my" life. For all intents and purposes, "my life" and "me" are the exact same things. To forget this is to live in the 3rd person, to try to "see myself" as if from someone else's point of view: i.e. how do I appear, what should I do? But to live in the 1st person is to see no separation between myself and my life (and hence, also between myself and the world), and thus, never to feel alienated from the flow that is life.

 

The continuance of the "I" is an addiction to control, because the function that "I" was designed for, was really just paying attention. Once I learn to just pay attention, without adding all the separation, judging, and analyzing that "I" have previously relied on, then the experience of "I" folds up, and the body continues being its own Self, without "me". If I allow "myself" to be a conduit for awareness, instead of a "self", then the body is free to live its life, with my assistance, but not my interference.

 

"No self" points at the above, but I think it shouldn't be mistaken for "what's real". It is a phenomenological "truth", not an actual one. "I" (i.e. the cluster of functions) do still exist (or I wouldn't be aware), just not as a "self", as we normally think of it.

 

Whatya up to, Otis, using all them five dollar words, like "phenomonology" and what not? Slippery slope, my friend, soon you'll be talkin' all kind of civil rights, if it feels good do it, moral relativism and all that jazz, and pretty soon, before ya know it, the dogs are already loose and the genie is out of the bottle. Playin' with fire, son, playin' with fire.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Blasto

[Simple_Jack]

[Simple_Jack]

I don't believe than "non-self" is literally true. Nor do I think that's what Buddha was saying.

 

I think what is true is that:

 

The phenomenological experience of my self is an illusion. What I experience as "me" is merely a cluster of habituated functions of my brain. There is a lot more to this organism, then the tiny bit that I experience as me. I do not have "my" self or "my" body, because the functions that feel like "I" are just one small part of the brain, which is one part of the body. The body is "real", but it is also unknowable to "me". What "I" experience is not the actual world, but a simulacrum of the world that my senses (including the parts of my brain that translate sense data into perception) and heuristics re-create inside my brain. It is only this simulacrum that the "I" experiences, and which it mis-interprets as the actual world. This is the only reality that "I" can ever know, the one that is inside my head, because "I" have no senses; I have only access to the data stream that my body's senses bring me. This simulacrum includes my concept/experience of myself, as well as my concept/experience of the body.

 

On a phenomenological level, "I" appear to be a self, separate from life, as if life was something that happens to "me". But, of course, there is no "me" separate from "my" life. For all intents and purposes, "my life" and "me" are the exact same things. To forget this is to live in the 3rd person, to try to "see myself" as if from someone else's point of view: i.e. how do I appear, what should I do? But to live in the 1st person is to see no separation between myself and my life (and hence, also between myself and the world), and thus, never to feel alienated from the flow that is life.

 

The continuance of the "I" is an addiction to control, because the function that "I" was designed for, was really just paying attention. Once I learn to just pay attention, without adding all the separation, judging, and analyzing that "I" have previously relied on, then the experience of "I" folds up, and the body continues being its own Self, without "me". If I allow "myself" to be a conduit for awareness, instead of a "self", then the body is free to live its life, with my assistance, but not my interference.

 

"No self" points at the above, but I think it shouldn't be mistaken for "what's real". It is a phenomenological "truth", not an actual one. "I" (i.e. the cluster of functions) do still exist (or I wouldn't be aware), just not as a "self", as we normally think of it.

 

If you actually want to know what the Buddha taught, then it doesn't hurt to read at least some of the sutras.

 

This translation of the Surangama Sutra, will help a lot and is relevant to what's being discussed in this thread; This translation is by Charles Luk: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/surangama.pdf

[Encephalon]

I'm very cautious about my consumption of original texts. Maybe I'm just lazy but I'm all too familiar with the human propensity, especially my own, to read erroneous meaning where it doesn't exist. So I guess I'd be in quite a quandary if I lived in an era preceding our own, where a prolific contingent of writers, both eastern and western, have rendered a gold mine of literature specifically for the western audience.

 

Curiously enough, there's one title called "What the Buddha Taught" written especially for us gringoes. And since I fall clearly within the camp of agnostic Buddhism, which is where I believe all personal and scholarly investigation should begin before we start trying to unravel all the metaphysics that came centuries later, I have to stick with David Loy, Stephen Batchelor, Jack Kornfield and David Edwards. I am not an unimpeachable source, but I abundantly harvested their ideas for my thesis in Buddhist social theory.

[TzuJanLi]

[Encephalon]

Hi Scott: I have experienced Buddhism in several in-depth perspectives, and i find it lacking in practical believability, my choice.. and, that is the issue, same as 'Ruthless Truth', if someone doesn't agree with the belief in 'no-self', the 'belief-system' is conditioned to diminish the non-believer's self-worth and convert them, no different than any religious evangelical.. what is depressing is to witness the dependence on someone else's, Buddha's in this case, experience, when in fact, Buddha says discover your own 'Buddha nature'.. the 'lack', is in one's faith in their own nature, such that they mimic rather than discover, and.. as such, never know authenticity or originality..

 

Be well..

 

Be well..

 

I have to say that I am obliged to accept your point as a legitimate view and would be grateful for the fruitful conversation that would ensue if we could tease out our differences in a harmonious way. Again, I belong to the agnostic camp of Buddhism and eschew all the metaphysical trappings that accreted to the original words centuries later. That being said, the parallels between early Buddhism and the conclusions of our own postmodern realization and the insights by the academic disciplines that inform if lead me to conclude that fundamental Buddhist doctrine is legitimate precisely because of its resonance with western findings, not because it is axiomatic.

 

Would you disagree with the first noble truth, that life is anguish, difficult, existential despair, suffering, etc., or are we in agreement there with a green light ahead?

[TzuJanLi]

I have to say that I am obliged to accept your point as a legitimate view and would be grateful for the fruitful conversation that would ensue if we could tease out our differences in a harmonious way. Again, I belong to the agnostic camp of Buddhism and eschew all the metaphysical trappings that accreted to the original words centuries later. That being said, the parallels between early Buddhism and the conclusions of our own postmodern realization and the insights by the academic disciplines that inform if lead me to conclude that fundamental Buddhist doctrine is legitimate precisely because of its resonance with western findings, not because it is axiomatic.

 

Would you disagree with the first noble truth, that life is anguish, difficult, existential despair, suffering, etc., or are we in agreement there with a green light ahead?

Hi Scott: Thanks for the clarity! We can agree that there is Life.. whether it is suffering or bliss, is revealed in general accordance with the experiencer's beliefs, as i understand the process.. is that a Green Light?

 

Be well..

[C T]

Why do i do this? A Taoist site populated by angry Buddhists, insisting they are the keepers of the 'right way'..

 

Such projections...

 

Sad.

 

Sooner or later, this sort of attitude will devour whatever goodness you have left. Angry Buddhists? Seems like the only angry one here is yourself.

 

Btw, i think you are a bit confused and have to be occasionally reminded that this site is not, is not, an exclusive Taoist country club. Its rather humorous you keep insisting otherwise.

 

Just think back to about a year ago, and reflect on your mindset then in response to threads of a similar vein, and now. Have you learnt anything? Grown perhaps in mental stature and tenacity? Seems to me you are still mired in the same gooey little rut as you were back then.

 

Is Buddhism lacking, or is it you? Honest appraisal please?

[TzuJanLi]

Such projections...

 

Sad.

 

Sooner or later, this sort of attitude will devour whatever goodness you have left. Angry Buddhists? Seems like the only angry one here is yourself.

 

Btw, i think you are a bit confused and have to be occasionally reminded that this site is not, is not, an exclusive Taoist country club. Its rather humorous you keep insisting otherwise.

 

Just think back to about a year ago, and reflect on your mindset then in response to threads of a similar vein, and now. Have you learnt anything? Grown perhaps in mental stature and tenacity? Seems to me you are still mired in the same gooey little rut as you were back then.

 

Is Buddhism lacking, or is it you? Honest appraisal please?

Buddhism..

 

Be well..

[C T]

Buddhism..

 

Be well..

Makes no difference if the blindfold comes off or stays on... some people find comfort in keeping their eyes closed while declaring others blind.

Edited May 14, 2011 by CowTao

[Aaron]

Such projections...

 

Sad.

 

Sooner or later, this sort of attitude will devour whatever goodness you have left. Angry Buddhists? Seems like the only angry one here is yourself.

 

Btw, i think you are a bit confused and have to be occasionally reminded that this site is not, is not, an exclusive Taoist country club. Its rather humorous you keep insisting otherwise.

 

Just think back to about a year ago, and reflect on your mindset then in response to threads of a similar vein, and now. Have you learnt anything? Grown perhaps in mental stature and tenacity? Seems to me you are still mired in the same gooey little rut as you were back then.

 

Is Buddhism lacking, or is it you? Honest appraisal please?

 

I would say your understanding of Buddhism is well represented in your practice of the Eightfold path. You are clearly practicing compassion now. I think the problem isn't reflected in what the site is, but rather the nearly rabid attacks that take place when anyone seems to post something contrary to what Buddhism teaches. You have many people here professing to be Buddhists, understanding the tenants of Buddhism, but not actually practicing the tenants of Buddhism, at least not in their interactions with others on this site.

 

I can tell you that I don't see people behaving like this when I visit the Buddhist temple in my neighborhood, so I'm thinking it's something attributed to Western Buddhism.

 

Aaron

 

edit- I think the title of this thread speaks volumes about how Buddhists behave on this site. I would respect their ideas a lot more if they actually practiced what they preach.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Twinner