All Prophets are Buddhas or How We Decide Who is Enlightened!

[goldisheavy]

In another thread the idea came up that in the Buddhist view all people who are enlightened are Buddhas. In other words you could say that Jesus was a Buddha and Lao Tzu was a Buddha, and perhaps Socrates was as well. The issue with many people is that this is very much an ethnocentric approach that seems to place Buddhism as the ultimate truth and any other religion as a watered down version at best. Perhaps this view is true, but I think that it is still worth examining the idea that all enlightened people have had the same core experiences and that's what I wanted to really discuss in this thread.

 

I wouldn't call such approach ethnocentric. I would call it doctrine-centric. Buddhist doctrine is what is esteemed here and not the ethnicity of the view holders.

 

As a personal example, if we go by my ethnicity I should be Eastern Orthodox Christian right now. I am not. I am not ethnically Buddhist. I respect Buddhism because of the meaning of the words in the Buddhist doctrine and because of Buddha's life example.

 

Also, I wouldn't say that Jesus was enlightened except for the sake of hollow and somewhat insincere politically correct attempt at peace. But at least I am relatively OK with Jesus. I positively hate Mohammed for many reasons, mainly his personal warlordism and the unkind and brutal doctrine he spawned in his wake.

 

So we have started many threads on the idea of what enlightenment really is and what I've come to understand is that the definition of enlightenment is relative, in other words the definition varies depending on who you ask. What I think we can all agree on is that the term enlightenment is meant to refer to someone who has had a transcendental experience.

 

I don't agree with this. I think enlightenment refers to someone who has wisdom and who is not deceived by common day to day appearances. It is someone who leads an examined life, like Socrates. Such a person may have transcendent experiences or may not. What matters more than anything is wisdom and not experience. Recognition of the true nature of phenomena is what matters.

 

My question is this, if all prophets are Buddha, then how can they come to their conclusions by following paths that radically differ from Buddha's?

 

They are not all Buddhas. Some of them are ignorant psychopaths.

 

It seems to me that if the statement, "all prophets are Buddhas" is true, then Buddhism alone isn't the sole answer to easing suffering or understanding the nature of the universe, but rather the elements that allow one to become enlightened really rely less on ideology and more on personal experience. If this is true, then the phrase "Hold nothing holy" takes on an entirely different meaning. In essence it is not the thought and ideas that transform someone, but rather the actual experience.

 

I could go on about this, but I think I've said my peace and what I'd like to hear now is what other people feel about this. I look forward to your opinions. Behave as you wish, compassion is not required nor am I going to advocate it. You are who you are, so be who you are.

 

Aaron

 

I think becoming a Buddhist groupie is contrary to the spirit of Buddhism. Buddhists more than any other people have relied on reason and that's why they get respect. They don't just bullshit your head off because some schizophrenic angel vision told them to. Buddhists do not have a monopoly on truth, but there is a damn good reason why Buddhists get more respect than Muslims or Christians. I don't agree with Buddha or Buddhism on everything, but I certainly respect Buddhist doctrine much more than any other doctrine save the Daoist perhaps, and even then, only when it is high level stuff like Daodejing and Zhuangzi and not the stuff about energy manipulation and bodily immortality.

Edited July 6, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Aaron]

I wouldn't call such approach ethnocentric. I would call it doctrine-centric. Buddhist doctrine is what is esteemed here and not the ethnicity of the view holders.

 

 

As a personal example, if we go by my ethnicity I should be Eastern Orthodox Christian right now. I am not. I am not ethnically Buddhist. I respect Buddhism because of the meaning of the words in the Buddhist doctrine and because of Buddha's life example.

 

Of course you're right in that regard. I was thinking ethnocentric from the perspective that most practitioners are either Indian, Chinese, or South East Asian. Westerners make up a very small minority.

 

Also, I wouldn't say that Jesus was enlightened except for the sake of hollow and somewhat insincere politically correct attempt at peace. But at least I am relatively OK with Jesus. I positively hate Mohammed for many reasons, mainly his personal warlordism and the unkind and brutal doctrine he spawned in his wake.

 

I try not to determine someone else's level of enlightenment anymore. I might discuss what they were aware of, but to me enlightenment is relative, as you have proven here.

 

I don't agree with this. I think enlightenment refers to someone who has wisdom and who is not deceived by common day to day appearances. It is someone who leads an examined life, like Socrates. Such a person may have transcendent experiences or may not. What matters more than anything is wisdom and not experience. Recognition of the true nature of phenomena is what matters.

 

Again it's all relative. What you determine to be enlightened, doesn't have to be what I determine it to be. I do, however, view Socrates as enlightened. I would agree with you that wisdom and experience are paramount, but in the end it's the recognition of the true nature of phenomena that defines enlightenment. In other words, you can be wise and experienced and not be enlightened.

 

They are not all Buddhas. Some of them are ignorant psychopaths.

 

Hehehe... I would have to agree with you there too. I was trying to make a point, that if one could see all enlightened individuals as being Buddhas, then they must also agree that enlightenment could be achieved through various different religious and philosophical schools.

 

 

I think becoming a Buddhist groupie is contrary to the spirit of Buddhism. Buddhists more than any other people have relied on reason and that's why they get respect. They don't just bullshit your head off because some schizophrenic angel vision told them to. Buddhists do not have a monopoly on truth, but there is a damn good reason why Buddhists get more respect than Muslims or Christians. I don't agree with Buddha or Buddhism on everything, but I certainly respect Buddhist doctrine much more than any other doctrine save the Daoist perhaps, and even then, only when it is high level stuff like Daodejing and Zhuangzi and not the stuff about energy manipulation and bodily immortality.

 

I think everyone should be free to be whatever they want to be. They shouldn't have to worry about labels. I respect people based on their behavior, not their religious or spiritual background. I'm not fond of traditional Mahayana or Therevada Buddhism, but I am fond of Zen. The reason I have issues with Mahayana and Therevada is their emphasis on right and wrong and subsequently the use of guilt to keep people in line. I really believe that guilt in this sense is the product of superstition, rather than a healthy impulse.

 

Aynways, thanks for your replies Gold.

 

Aaron

[goldisheavy]

I think everyone should be free to be whatever they want to be.

 

I agree for the most part. But when someone decides to promulgate a doctrine that contains passages that call for death to unbelievers, that's when I get off the "all religions should be respected" bus. I'm sorry, but if someone's doctrine is basically saying that I need to be killed, people can't seriously expect me to support such a doctrine. And we all know what I am talking about here, and this is a rather extreme example to make the point obvious.

 

There are many things I disagree with contained in many religious doctrines, and I find many of them ugly and many of them are hard to tolerate, but somewhere the line must be drawn and inciting murder of anyone who disagrees is as good a place as any to draw such line.

 

I would also include things like the caste system, demonizing of sex, viewing women as lesser beings -- all these are good examples of some other things I don't want to tolerate or respect.

 

If we can agree on these bare bone basics, then yes, I agree to let everyone believe whatever they want when it comes to metaphysics, God, the meaning of life, how many times one should fast, etc.

 

They shouldn't have to worry about labels. I respect people based on their behavior, not their religious or spiritual background. I'm not fond of traditional Mahayana or Therevada Buddhism, but I am fond of Zen. The reason I have issues with Mahayana and Therevada is their emphasis on right and wrong and subsequently the use of guilt to keep people in line. I really believe that guilt in this sense is the product of superstition, rather than a healthy impulse.

 

Aynways, thanks for your replies Gold.

 

Aaron

 

I've noticed deeply authoritarian streaks on many Buddhist forums, and it is ugly. I've also seen a good deal of fear mongering on some of the Buddhist forums, for example, telling people they are going to hell or saying they'll be reborn as animals if they don't hop on some doctrinal bandwagon, etc. I hate such things.

 

This is one of the reasons why I can never be a Buddhist myself.

 

I really dislike religion and I choose to respect people in a manner very similar to what you describe. I respect people based on the quality of the highest aspirations people hold and based on the personal integrity with which people pursue those aspirations in life. I reject all dogmas. Dogmatic knowledge is defined as knowledge that should be accepted purely on its say-so. I don't think we should accept anything on anyone's say-so, even if it was God or an angel. Even if God could speak, we should challenge everything and make sure it stands up to reason and experience. Dogmatic attitudes are a plague on mankind.

 

More than anything I want freedom of conscience and freedom of thought instead of freedom of religion. I think religion often directly opposes freedom of conscience and freedom of thought. That's why I am very mixed on the whole "freedom of religion" idea. I think freedom from religion is really more to my liking. How many times have I seen reasonable questions get dismissed by the religious authorities. It happens a lot. If you ask uncomfortable questions, you are told to forget your question and have faith instead. I don't accept this kind of intellectual bullying at all.

 

So all the talk about every prophet being Buddha is not really to my liking.

 

I will agree that some of the people outside Buddhism have been very wise, perhaps enlightened, and should be considered for inspiration on par with the Buddha. That I can agree with. Like I said, Buddhism does not have a monopoly on wisdom and enlightenment is basically a perfection of wisdom. So I have a lot of respect for people like Socrates, Zhuangzi, and even "just" writers like Richard Bach, and many many others.

 

I also like to read the findings of modern science, even though modern science is not a person. And because modern science is not based on personality worship there is not necessarily some specific scientist to pay homage to, rather, I pay homage to the process of science and to the ideals of science.

 

So for an obvious example, open exchange of information is one of the scientific ideals and I support it wholeheartedly. This is one of the reasons I get upset about all the secret clubs readily observable in the spiritual space.

Edited July 6, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Wynn]

Just read this on some guy's blog.. it seems appropriate to share it here:

 

From Jed McKenna - "The you that you think of as you (and that thinks of you as you, and so on) is not you, its just the character that the underlying truth of you is dreaming into brief existence. Enlightenment isn't in the character, it's in the underlying truth! Now, there's nothing wrong with being a dream character, of course, unless it's your goal to wake up, in which case the dream character must be ruthlessly annihilated. If your desire is to experience transcendental bliss or supreme love or altered states of consciousness or awakened kundalini, or to qualify for heaven, or to liberate all sentient beings, or simply to become the best dang person you can be, then rejoice! you're in the right place: the dream state, this dualistic universe. However, if your interest is to cut the crap and figure out what is true, then you're in the wrong place and you've got a very messy fight ahead and there's no point in pretending otherwise."

 

 

 

That is an excellent quote.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Wynn

[Simple_Jack]

Emptiness according to the Buddha has nothing to do with being without thought. Seeing through thought as it occurs, is what emptiness means in Buddhas expressions.

 

Of course, stilling the mind is part of the practice, but it's merely part of the practice. It's not the end all be all of the meaning. Zen practitioners seem to cling to this idea of emptiness as being synonymous with a void, like an empty jar? This is what I have come to see at least.

 

It depends who you ask, I guess. I've read explanations of "no-mind" as "seeing through thought as it occurs," or seeing through the midst of discrimination of subject and object, even while making discriminations.

 

Historically there were Zen masters who spoke out against "Dead Tree Zen" or the mistaken application of "silent illumination." In other words trying to exclusively hold onto immediate awareness.

 

As for modern day practitioners and this thing on "no-mind," most of the time they're just misinterpreting what this means in Zen.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Vajrahridaya]

As for modern day practitioners and this thing on "no-mind," most of the time they're just misinterpreting what this means in Zen.

 

Yes, I think so, as I've read quotes from famous Zen Masters who made points that are more in tune with what was taught in India. I do think it's more of a modern interpretation as the top down theory of Theism, as in all things come from one giant thing, has been turned into all things coming from one giant void, which seems how the term "emptiness" is interpreted by most Westerners, as a "mahashunya" or great void which is an experience in meditation. Even Indian Hindu's do this as well, so maybe I cannot say that it is a modern interpretation. As even in famous Hindu refutations of emptiness, it's this way of mis-interpreting that they are holding up and refuting, which in fact is a mis-understanding of what it means and how it's utilized in Buddhist philosophy, and cosmology. Hindu's are always saying, "How can something come from nothing?" when they refute the Buddhist doctrine on emptiness. I myself as a Hindu used to think that this is what emptiness meant in Buddhism. I thought it was referring to a level of Samadhi as that's what they taught me in my Hindu upbringing. It was a total revelation when I debated with Buddhist scholars and found out I'd been mislead in my understanding of Buddhism my entire life. I didn't understand dependent origination at all! I thought it meant that everything arises dependent upon the great void, or mahashunya. Which is only a part of the teaching for meditation, but not the end all be all as it seems to be treated in top down approaches.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Vajrahridaya]

 

The view of the sutras and Zen are one and the same. Not different. In fact, Zen is the summation of all of Shakyamuni Buddhas teachings.

 

Zen is still a Buddhist philosophy. All the masters and progenators of Zen thouroughly mastered the Tripitaka. They were all fully learned in the Hinayana and Mahayana canon.

 

Please, don't talk of or advocate the abandoning of the sutras when you haven't reached a high level yourself. This is a common problem that is associated with this school, both in modern times and historically.

 

 

I think it's when people get the religion bypass injection, due to their experiences with Christianity. They then read the concept of, "A transmission outside of doctrine" as quoted in Zen and they think it has something to do with throwing away all the Buddhist teachings and getting enlightened without the help of the original Shakyamuni Buddhas basic guidance. I know I'm simplifying right here, but I've found this true with a lot of Western students of Zen in my own personal subjective experience.

 

It wasn't until I talked to a Zen Monk that I realized that it was just due to the fact that Westerners weren't immersing themselves in the study of what the Zen Patriarchs taught and were just thinking they'd get enlightened by sitting on a cushion and following their breath with eyes half open while thinking about the meaning of Koans?

 

I've never read Alan Watts, so I don't know what he taught as far as Zen goes?

 

But, what it means to get "Transmission outside of doctrine" is just like what it means in Vajrayana Buddhism, when you get zapped by the realization of a Yogic Master and glimpse an experience of your true nature. It's the same in Zen, when you meet a Zen Master, they give you an experience of Satori through mind to mind transmission through a Koan of some sort that inspires you on the path of realizing this potential all the time. But, one must still study the Buddhist doctrines.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

I call bullshit. There are a lot of commentaries on sutras and books dealing with how to cultivate/cultivation methods that are not translated into English. This shows a lack of what the school teaches historically and the history of the cultivation methods of this school and of China period. Please don't let what is passed off as "Zen," nowadyas mislead you.

 

China had a lot of contact with India centuries before Tibet. Many of it's cultivation methods made it's way into China. In fact Buddhism in China made an imppact because of it's cultivation techniques brought from India. They were the skeleton vizualization method and anapana (mindfulness of the breath.) In fact the fang-shi Taoists adopted anapana as part of thier practice, because of it's efficiency.

 

If you're talking about Vajrayana, you should not forget that China had it's own Esoteric school, seperate of the Tibetans. In fact that is where the Japanese Shingon school got it's methods from. Also on the northern borders of China, Tibetan style Buddhism was practiced. Historically there were some Northern Buddhist masters (including some Zen masters) who advocated the practices of Tibetan Buddhism.

 

Get your facts straight, buddy.

 

Yes, sorry.

 

I understand all that and I've talked about all that information before. I'm talking more about how Zen has translated itself in the West through people like Twinner. At least, how I've seen it done by most Westerners as I said earlier, in my limited subjective experience of Western Zeners.

 

I know that China also has Vajrayana traditions, and Japan and other areas in the Pacific since before Tibet. Also, Zen is based on lots of what Asanga taught in the Yogacara or Chittamatra. So yes... sorry, I was more just talking to Twinners form of Zen, which seems to be quite popular with a lot of Judeo Christian fall outs. I didn't mean to come off like that. You're right, my post that you quoted above is shit when it comes to what Zen really teaches in it's original version. I concede to the calling of Bullshit.

 

p.s. In fact, I think most Western Zen people don't even know who Asanga or Vasubhandu are nor what they taught? Which is pretty sad, considering Abhidharma is very important in Zen.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Vajrahridaya]

To VJ:

 

Also, I have no clue what this Alan Watts guy really teaches. I'll stick with the sutras, shastras and commentaries by people who actually have cultivation achievement.

 

Always the safest bet. I remember one of my first Buddhist books over 20 years ago was from a Pelican Press publication of Milarepas Songs and it was so overshadowed with Monotheistic inflection, I really got the wrong idea about what Milarepa was on about. It's interesting to read older books on Buddhist teachings translated into English from 50 to even 100 years ago and read how mistranslated it is. Americans and the general British population really wasn't getting the right idea about Buddhism at all, for the most part it seems.

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes, Yogacara, Madhyamaka, Samdhinirmocana and Chittamatra doctrine was very important in this school. Originally a Chinese translator (forgot his name; possibly a Zen master) never actually finished translating the Yogacara shastras when he was going back and forth between India and China, bringing back sutras and stuff back to translate. They were later then lost. So they had to get the Tibetan translations and translate that in to Chinese.

 

After initially having realization on the 1st bhumi, poeple in the Zen school would then master Abhidharma.

 

The Japanese Shingon methods is actually what was brought back from China. It's the remnats of Esoteric Buddhism of China.

 

Also like I said above: Zen also advocated the methods of cultivation from the Tien-Tai sect also.

 

I've read that Nepal has tons of original sanskrit sutras! They should get translated into English... properly! I should learn Devanagari and do it myself! LOL!

[Aaron]

No, actually your interpretation is all fucked up, unfortunetly. Unless you're talkiing about cultivating samadhi, then read my post about what "no-mind" means in Zen.

 

The view of the sutras and Zen are one and the same. Not different. In fact, Zen is the summation of all of Shakyamuni Buddhas teachings.

 

Zen is still a Buddhist philosophy. All the masters and progenators of Zen thouroughly mastered the Tripitaka. They were all fully learned in the Hinayana and Mahayana canon.

 

Please, don't talk of or advocate the abandoning of the sutras when you haven't reached a high level yourself. This is a common problem that is associated with this school, both in modern times and historically.

 

There are a lot of sutras and shastras dealing with actual cultivation of quiesience and insight and in cultivating the path in general; that will be helpful to you, regardless if you don't like what Buddhism teaches.

 

Hi Simple Jack,

 

Unfortunately I am taking this point of view from people who have reached a high level in Zen. They all agree that nothingness is a misinterpretation and that a closer examination will find that emptiness is a better explanation for the phenomena I am speaking of. Also, I never advocated abandoning the Sutras, I just say don't accept them as fact, they're just words on paper attributed to a man that no can actually prove really existed, that's all. So you read them, take them with a grain of salt and use what you can and discard what you can't use. So when I read about dieties, heavens and hells, I discard that and focus on the parts I believe actually are attributed to reality, rather than superstition.

 

Anyways, I'm not even sure where you got this idea that I told people not to read the sutras.

 

edit- Also the idea of emptiness stems from Taoism and the unnameable, i.e. the void that is empty, but inexhaustible. So even though it is empty, it is the wellspring from which all things are given life, children, thoughts, birds, rocks, etc.

 

Now my own experience is that saying it is nothing isn't so, because there is something, only it is without substance or form, it's like trying to imagine that you're holding something, but there's nothing there. You think that something might be there, you feel that there might be something, but really all you can bring away from it is an empty hand, there is nothing to grasp or hold onto. If you've experienced it, then you know what I'm talking about.

 

Aaron

 

Also I'm almost certain Alan Watts reached a higher level of enlightenment than anyone you or I know, but if it makes you feel better to discount him that's fine, but from my understanding he was close friends with many high ranking Zen masters who considered him to be a gift to the west. Feel free to disparage and criticize if you feel it's needed, because of course we know from first hand experience the level of his awareness. (That was sarcasm... in other words read his books then make judgments.)

Edited July 6, 2011 by Twinner

[goldisheavy]

It depends who you ask, I guess. I've read explanations of "no-mind" as "seeing through thought as it occurs," or seeing through the midst of discrimination of subject and object, even while making discriminations.

 

Historically there were Zen masters who spoke out against "Dead Tree Zen" or the mistaken application of "silent illumination." In other words trying to exclusively hold onto immediate awareness.

 

As for modern day practitioners and this thing on "no-mind," most of the time they're just misinterpreting what this means in Zen.

 

Well said. Zen people are astonished almost universally when I show them some Zen text like Dogen's Zanmai-o-Zanmai where Dogen urges the meditator to actively think about the meaning of meditation instead of just being like a "dead tree" idiot.

 

What??? Thinking??? What about "just sitting"?

Edited July 6, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Aaron]

Yes, sorry.

 

I understand all that and I've talked about all that information before. I'm talking more about how Zen has translated itself in the West through people like Twinner. At least, how I've seen it done by most Westerners as I said earlier, in my limited subjective experience of Western Zeners.

 

I know that China also has Vajrayana traditions, and Japan and other areas in the Pacific since before Tibet. Also, Zen is based on lots of what Asanga taught in the Yogacara or Chittamatra. So yes... sorry, I was more just talking to Twinners form of Zen, which seems to be quite popular with a lot of Judeo Christian fall outs. I didn't mean to come off like that. You're right, my post that you quoted above is shit when it comes to what Zen really teaches in it's original version. I concede to the calling of Bullshit.

 

p.s. In fact, I think most Western Zen people don't even know who Asanga or Vasubhandu are nor what they taught? Which is pretty sad, considering Abhidharma is very important in Zen.

 

 

Hello Vaj,

 

"People like Twinner"... really? Twinner's form of Zen? Jeesh... if you didn't seem self-righteous, arrogant, and condescending before, you've come through loud and clear this time. I think it's hilarious how you and other Westerners see yourselves as the carriers of the Eastern flame, when all you do is quote from texts.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Also I represent a very tiny minority of Zen Buddhists. Most try to convince me of the necessity of the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path and Sutras, especially the Heart Sutra. I have to remind them that there's no need to worry, there's nothing here to save, so let me be.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

Well said. Zen people are astonished almost universally when I show them some Zen text like Dogen's Zanmai-o-Zanmai where Dogen urges the meditator to actively think about the meaning of meditation instead of just being like a "dead tree" idiot.

 

What??? Thinking??? What about "just sitting"?

 

I don't know many Zen Buddhists that are astonished when I say it's not all about sitting. I think today most genuine practitioners understand the need for practice and cultivation in all areas of one's life.

 

Aaron

[goldisheavy]

[Vajrahridaya]

Hello Vaj,

 

"People like Twinner"... really? Twinner's form of Zen? Jeesh... if you didn't seem self-righteous, arrogant, and condescending before, you've come through loud and clear this time. I think it's hilarious how you and other Westerners see yourselves as the carriers of the Eastern flame, when all you do is quote from texts.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Also I represent a very tiny minority of Zen Buddhists. Most try to convince me of the necessity of the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path and Sutras, especially the Heart Sutra. I have to remind them that there's no need to worry, there's nothing here to save, so let me be.

 

Yes, if your type of new age mix and match wins, we'll loose traditions that actually bring people to liberation, instead of just making them feel good in a politically correct back patting party.

 

Also, if you notice my history, I do very little text quoting and speak directly from the heart of my experience and realization.

 

I think you're a good person who means well, but your anti-tradition stance is boring, typical, and without nuance. Liberation in Buddhism is about sifting through the details of ones bondage, being nuanced about it's nature, and deeply focused. You dismiss aspects of the Buddhadharma that you haven't realized as of yet, as if it could not be true and that people just make this stuff up. But, you just haven't gone deep enough yet. That is all.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

Yes, if your type of new age mix and match wins, we'll loose traditions that actually bring people to liberation, instead of just making them feel good in a politically correct back patting party.

 

I disagree. It's not the tradition that brings the person to liberation but a thorough examination of one's most fundamental beliefs. If anything, traditions promote a good deal of secrecy, anti-intellectualism and dogma, all things that inhibit an honest examination.

[Aaron]

Yes, if your type of new age mix and match wins, we'll loose traditions that actually bring people to liberation, instead of just making them feel good in a politically correct back patting party.

 

Also, if you notice my history, I do very little text quoting and speak directly from the heart of my experience and realization.

 

I think you're a good person who means well, but your anti-tradition stance is boring, typical, and without nuance. Liberation in Buddhism is about sifting through the details of ones bondage, being nuanced about it's nature, and deeply focused. You dismiss aspects of the Buddhadharma that you haven't realized as of yet, as if it could not be true and that people just make this stuff up. But, you just haven't gone deep enough yet. That is all.

 

 

Hello Vaj,

 

But I'm not advocating that people give up traditions, I'm just saying that they're not for me. I think if it's something you're interested in, then fine. Also Vaj, your fear is unfounded, as I said before, if it's the truth, then anyone who hears it will know it as such. You're not giving your own faith enough credit.

 

I think that you're mistaken about how deep I have gone. To put it bluntly I have suffered more than you could ever imagine and yet it never broke me, rather I have learned the nature of suffering and have moved past it. Do I still suffer? Yes. I had a migraine a couple weeks ago.

 

Does my school of Zen make people feel good? Well if people feel good about rigorously examining their lives then sure. If they feel good about examining the nature of who they really are, dark parts and all, then yes it's a feel good Zen. My school of Zen requires practice, not just sitting. My school of Zen requires that you actually act ethically, not just practice ethics via word of mouth. My version of Zen requires you to practice compassion to all who suffer, not just those you wish to. I think the problem with my version of Zen is that it requires one to do more than just talk about it, so not many people are interested. It's much easier to talk about the virtues of Mahayana or Theravada at a coffee shop than it is to actually practice.

 

Of course my school isn't exclusively Zen either, it's also a bit of Taoism and Hinduism. My school is based on what I've learned and what I've experienced. I practice what I practice because I feel the need, not because it's required or because it's cool, because believe me, no one has ever said, "oh you're a Buddhist, cool."

 

I'm going to leave you with a few questions, actually these are questions for anyone who's claiming to be a Buddhist. When was the last time you meditated? When was the last time you showed compassion for another, actually did something to ease someone's suffering? When was the last time you did something more than just talk about Buddhism? If it's been more than a day for any of these, then I'd suggest you get busy. You can't bear fruit without first planting seeds. You can't harvest fruit without going out into the field. You can't enjoy the fruit unless it is prepared properly.

 

Aaron

[Vajrahridaya]

I disagree. It's not the tradition that brings the person to liberation but a thorough examination of one's most fundamental beliefs. If anything, traditions promote a good deal of secrecy, anti-intellectualism and dogma, all things that inhibit an honest examination.

 

I of course disagree. I think your argument is one sided, based upon never having the pleasure of experiencing a living tradition and it's incredible benefits. Of course, individuals do experience what you have just stated, and in many instances, you are right. But, it's not the traditions fault, if it's guided by liberated beings, it's the people who follow them who just don't have the strong intention for self questioning. Most traditions are ruined by those with power who are not in it for the essence of the tradition and are in it for the money, fame and power, either that or familial allegiance.

 

Buddhism as a tradition, has brought countless individuals to genuine liberation, not just good feelings or a nice sense of self, but actual Buddhahood. And we still totally disagree on the secrecy thing. Your view on that is highly dogmatic and lacks insight. Certain techniques should not be given to people who are not ready for them, period. It just wouldn't be compassionate to do so.