fanatical Buddhists

[3bob]

Some Buddhists here are not fanatics, (thankfully) the rest do Buddhism a dis-service with their know it all pretenses and deluges of blabbering one-up-man-ship in threads they seemingly feel the need to set everyone straight on. (such is sick regardless of who or what sect they quote, including co-opting words of the historic Buddha)

 

Om

[JustARandomPanda]

Some Buddhists here are not fanatics, (thankfully) the rest do Buddhism a dis-service with their know it all pretenses and deluges of blabbering one-up-man-ship in threads they seemingly feel the need to set everyone straight on. (such is sick regardless of who or what sect they quote, including co-opting words of the historic Buddha)

 

Om

 

 

I love me some Fanatical Buddhists! LOL. I learn a lot from the exchanges and it is always entertaining to watch! Kick back and eat me some popcorn I'm gonna have a show!

 

I kinda sorta consider myself a baby Buddhist as it's what I know the most. Ok. Well actually I know the most about exoteric Christianity simply because that's how I was raised but next to that would be Buddhism and lately I've been getting into Taoism.

 

I presume this post is talking about VH as he's the only fantatical Buddhist I know. He definitely doesn't fit the mold of what I consider a run-of-the-mill Buddhist. But that just tells me that the Tao contains more variety than my preconceptions typically hold.

 

A more typical Buddhist who posts occasionally on TaoBums is Mat Black. I think if people want to see how many Buddhists behave they should look to Mat Black's posts. They are overflowing with wishes for the happiness and liberation of all sentient beings and pretty much stick to just that.

[thuscomeone]

20+ pages

[doc benway]

Some Buddhists here are not fanatics, (thankfully) the rest do Buddhism a dis-service with their know it all pretenses and deluges of blabbering one-up-man-ship in threads they seemingly feel the need to set everyone straight on. (such is sick regardless of who or what sect they quote, including co-opting words of the historic Buddha)

 

Om

When we invalidate the beliefs of others, it is violence. It is hurtful.

It is not right speech or right behavior.

I have been guilty of it many times.

When we think we know, we are somehow driven to show the light to others.

This is not generally a skillful practice.

 

A more typical Buddhist who posts occasionally on TaoBums is Mat Black. I think if people want to see how many Buddhists behave they should look to Mat Black's posts. They are overflowing with wishes for the happiness and liberation of all sentient beings and pretty much stick to just that.

I wouldn't call mat typical (and I know you mean no disrespect). I consider him a treasure.

He is not a Buddhist, he is Buddha.

He walks the walk.

[ralis]

Buddhism has become just another religious belief system. Complete with exotic rituals, temples, a lifetime of reading books on the subject, rules and doctrinal proclamations. Even hell realms. All the trappings of a religion. Fanaticism can and will occur from this.

 

Instead of Buddhist practitioners being taught how to liberate their belief systems, more are added, ad infinitum.

[3bob]

 

I love me some Fanatical Buddhists! LOL. I learn a lot from the exchanges and it is always entertaining to watch! Kick back and eat me some popcorn I'm gonna have show!

 

I kinda sorta consider myself a baby Buddhist as it's what I know the most. Ok. Well actually I know the most about exoteric Christianity simply because that's how I was raised but next to that would be Buddhism and lately I've been getting into Taoism.

 

I presume this post is talking about VH as he's the only fantatical Buddhist I know. He definitely doesn't fit the mold of what I consider a run-of-the-mill Buddhist. But that just tells me that the Tao contains more variety than my preconceptions typically hold.

 

A more typical Buddhist who posts occasionally on TaoBums is Mat Black. I think if people want to see how many Buddhists behave they should look to Mat Black's posts. They are overflowing with wishes for the happiness and liberation of all sentient beings and pretty much stick to just that.

 

I may have to search out some of Mat's posts for a look see. Anyway, imo the instances of breaking "right speech" (which is a fine teaching) is not an entertaining show.

[3bob]

When we invalidate the beliefs of others, it is violence. It is hurtful.

It is not right speech or right behavior.

I have been guilty of it many times.

When we think we know, we are somehow driven to show the light to others.

This is not generally a skillful practice.

 

I wouldn't call matt typical (and I know you mean no disrespect). I consider him a treasure. He is not a Buddhist, he is Buddha. He walks the walk.

 

 

"When we invalidate the beliefs of others, it is violence"

Well said Steve

[Vajrahridaya]

When we invalidate the beliefs of others, it is violence. It is hurtful.

It is not right speech or right behavior.

 

If the belief is bringing ignorance or violence in the long run, it is not violence to invalidate it.

 

I guess it depends upon your perspective. Of course, if it's your belief being invalidated, the reaction makes more violence than the person invalidating your belief. This is rather a revelation of ones own ignorance in identification with that belief.

 

The Buddha invalidated beliefs. He was a patron of peace. Not everyone accepted that and some reacted with violence towards him.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[3bob]

Buddhism has become just another religious belief system. Complete with exotic rituals, temples, a lifetime of reading books on the subject, rules and doctrinal proclamations. Even hell realms. All the trappings of a religion. Fanaticism can and will occur from this.

 

Instead of Buddhist practitioners being taught how to liberate their belief systems, more are added, ad infinitum.

 

I'm not against any belief system that follows the ways of kindness, down to earth spiritual help, relief from continued suffering, etc. etc.. Nor do I automatically equate religion(s) with fanaticism, but with vehicles that can be used for parts of the journey.

 

Om

[doc benway]

If the belief is bringing ignorance or violence in the long run, it is not violence to invalidate it.

 

I guess it depends upon your perspective. Of course, if it's your belief being invalidated, the reaction makes more violence than the person invalidating your belief. This is rather a revelation of ones own ignorance in identification with that belief.

 

The Buddha invalidated beliefs. He was a patron of peace. Not everyone accepted that and some reacted with violence towards him.

I agree with everything that you say. I choose how to react to your attempt to invalidate my belief.

However, recognize that it is you, who are invalidating the other's belief, that is clinging to your own.

And it is you, expecting the other to live their life as YOU see fit. Unless of course they that come to you asking for your view, which we all do here by virtue of our presence.

 

Dramatic aside:

I have a friend who is a devout and fundamentalist Christian. One night after practice he cornered me into a religious discussion which turned to debate and argument. At one point, I asked him if a young child, who lived in an area where there was no knowledge of his brand of Christianity died without being saved and led the most pure life imaginable, what would happen to that child's soul - "they would burn" or some such nonsense, "because don't you understand that God could have saved her if He wanted to.." I was incensed and let him know what I thought of his view of reality. Weeks later he told me, nearly in tears, that these beliefs were all he had and he needed them. I had shaken him and he relied on the conviction of his beliefs to hold his shit together. I learned he had a harsh background and I won't go into it any further.

 

I recognized that, no matter what my view of things are, it is not my position to impose them on others (I frequently screw up and violate this but I try). I recognize that great harm comes from these insane views but invalidating another's belief comes with a great responsibility, and who of us are enough of an authority to take that on?

In trivial matters I am - for example, I just put on a very authoritarian posture in a recent thread, but that was something I know about.

 

To do that regarding the ineffable nature of reality? Not me....

[Vajrahridaya]

Oh, I don't wish to see anyone live according to how I see fit.

 

I'm just here sharing a view. If it invalidates another's view? They can choose the reaction according to how they wish to be about it, up to you to react fanatically telling me I'm a fanatic, or... debate the point? Or, put me on ignore, walk away, whatever.

 

I'm not nearly as attached to my views as people assume. There are 7 billion people on this planet and not everyone is going to agree with me, at all, in fact, very few will. I can just support my view endlessly through whatever quotes as well as experiential reflection, including reflection on the Buddhas "right view", the first and the most important of the 8 fold noble path, as it is the foundation of all the others.

 

I don't actually purposely invalidate views, it's just how people take what I say. Since obviously this is a fanatical thread 3bob is throwing directly at me personally, as well as maybe some others who have the same view as I. I just thought I might throw out a different view of the whole thing.

 

It's your choice to react to it as you will. 3bob is obviously emotionally attached to his view and is very reactive to some of my posts as well as Michaelz posts, and Xabirs posts.

 

We are not the fanatics, honestly. I know these people better than that.

 

We are just sharing a view, take it or leave it. This is a discussion board, no one is really going to be coming up to me asking me things. People take this stuff far to seriously. I just enjoy writing when challenged. That's just my personality type "A" Aries, whatever. I'm actually not dogmatic in person at all, I accept all people and love all people, of all types.

 

p.s. Actually some do come up to me and ask me things in PM, and actually agree with my views in private rather than in public, including Matt Black.

 

Matt Black is a big heart and expresser of the 4 immeasurables. He's a good balance here. He has a different personality from me. He is awesome!

Edited July 10, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Oh, I would also like to add, since I'm not all right, I must also be wrong at times, wrong about the way I handle things, in ways that I'm not even aware of yet.

 

So, I do apologize about the aspects of my self expression that are not as reflective of inter-relativity as they have the potential to be.

 

Please find it in your hearts to forgive me for not being a Buddha, and merely being a wana be Buddha.

[doc benway]

Oh, I would also like to add, since I'm not all right, I must also be wrong at times, wrong about the way I handle things, in ways that I'm not even aware of yet.

 

So, I do apologize about the aspects of my self expression that are not as reflective of inter-relativity as they have the potential to be.

 

Please find it in your hearts to forgive me for not being a Buddha, and merely being a wana be Buddha.

That was very nice of you to say.

I certainly forgive you, FWIW, but I think somehow we need to let go the desire to be Buddha to be Buddha.

Good luck to you

[Vajrahridaya]

That was very nice of you to say.

I certainly forgive you, FWIW, but I think somehow we need to let go the desire to be Buddha to be Buddha.

Good luck to you

 

One only truly lets go of that desire when one is one, practically speaking.

 

The practice for letting go and being truly that which one is the highest potential for being is a process that is fueled by the longing to truly be thus.

 

It's a paradox. But, it's the quickening paradox.

[doc benway]

One only truly lets go of that desire when one is one, practically speaking.

 

The practice for letting go and being truly that which one is the highest potential for being is a process that is fueled by the longing to truly be thus.

 

I would turn the phrase around - One only truly is one, when one lets go of that desire...

The practice can never be successful as long as there is a desire to become something other than what one already is...

That is the most insidious desire and often the most difficult to let go of.

This is why desire for spiritual attainment is the most dangerous, it is the most subtle but most deeply desired.

There comes a point where it needs to be let go, a point where it is the obstacle, no longer the impetus.

Or not, I could be completely and utterly mistaken.

How would I know?

[Informer]

Are these really "your" views or views that you have decided to adopt?

 

That's the thing with teachers, they can only tell thier understanding or what they have accepted as truth. Even if what they say is completely false, you are in no position to disagree with them.

 

This isn't true with all teachers, although it seems to be with the majority.

[Vajrahridaya]

How would I know?

 

Exactly, people are told to quit longing for personal evolution too soon by people attempting to seem wise. Really, I think only a master can tell you when to let go of that last fetter of deep spiritual desire. Either physically or from another dimension (or both simultaneously), regardless, this is one of the important qualities of lineage connection.

 

You don't know till you know! Most times by the time you get there, you're so egoless that someone who was there has to let you known by someone who was, to let you known by someone, so on and so forth, has to let you know that you know what you know so you can let go. This is subtle stuff we're dealing with, best not fool around until you can really fool around! Like playing with dynamite, until you're subtle enough to know how to snap off that fuse a nano-second before it hits the powder, over and over again consistently, you better not even try.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[doc benway]

Really, I think only a master can tell you when to let go of that last fetter of deep spiritual desire, either physically or from another dimension (or both simultaneously), regardless, this is one of the important qualities of lineage connection.

 

Here I have to disagree. I think only I can know how and when to drop it.

No one can show me that.

They can tell me to drop it until they are blue in the face, only I can feel when it can be done and how.

The master is human and his journey is uniquely his, my journey is uniquely mine.

He can point the way, he can be there to show me that it can be done and that one can continue to live in this world after emerging from the other side.

But there comes a time when the master must be left behind and I have to walk alone.

And there is no path to follow but that I create for myself.

And I think that point is related to this question of letting go of spiritual desire.

[Vajrahridaya]

Here I have to disagree. I think only I can know how and when to drop it.

No one can show me that.

They can tell me to drop it until they are blue in the face, only I can feel when it can be done and how.

The master is human and his journey is uniquely his, my journey is uniquely mine.

He can point the way, he can be there to show me that it can be done and that one can continue to live in this world after emerging from the other side.

But there comes a time when the master must be left behind and I have to walk alone.

And there is no path to follow but that I create for myself.

And I think that point is related to this question of letting go of spiritual desire.

 

Like I said, the inner openness and outer pointer have to coincide like two mirrors looking at each other recognizing the mutual state of clear reflection simultaneously. Through reading the Autobiographies of various masters, real masters, not those wanabees who have some experience, but are mostly just intellectuals. But real Masters that have powers beyond the normal level of popularly recognized human capacity. Like the 84 Mahasiddhas. They talk about the mutualness of recognition through the power of being pointed to it once there is readiness. Your whole idea of, "Having to go alone" is very dualistic, on even the subtlest level. By the stage I am talking about, you are so egoless, that you need lineage to point out the fact that you are egoless, so that you can play through an ego again in order to help properly with adequately empowered personality.

 

Anyway, get it or not. The intellect is a jungle in there!

Edited July 10, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Informer]

Like I said, the inner openness and outer pointer have to coincide like two mirrors looking at each other recognizing the mutual state of clear reflection simultaneously. Through reading the Autobiographies of various masters, real masters, not those wanabees like Krishnamurti and Gurdjieff who have some experience, but are mostly just intellectuals. But real Masters that have powers beyond the normal level of popularly recognized human capacity. Like the 84 Mahasiddhas. They talk about the mutualness of recognition through the power of being pointed to it once there is readiness. Your whole idea of, "Having to go alone" is very dualistic, on even the subtlest level. By the stage I am talking about, you are so egoless, that you need lineage to point out the fact that you are egoless, so that you can play through an ego again in order to help properly with adequately empowered personality.

 

Anyway, get it or not. The intellect is a jungle in there!

 

Close Vaj, but not quite. This brings me back to awakened vs enlightened. That "readiness" is what i consider awakenig, which until this point, any preponderance of what you had of what enlightenment is, would have been wrong.

 

Going alone is again a matter of perception. It can be true as it can be false.

[Vajrahridaya]

Close Vaj, but not quite. This brings me back to awakened vs enlightened. That "readiness" is what i consider awakenig, which until this point, any preponderance of what you had of what enlightenment is, would have been wrong.

 

Going alone is again a matter of perception. It can be true as it can be false.

 

Well that's my point. The intimacy between I and other is so transcendent of boundaries that recognition from lineage is like you talking to yourself at this point. It's a reflection of you alone looking in a mirror that has both inner and outer reflection aligned through the enlightened lineage without time restraints.

 

p.s. or space restraints

Edited July 10, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[doc benway]

Like I said, the inner openness and outer pointer have to coincide like two mirrors looking at each other recognizing the mutual state of clear reflection simultaneously. Through reading the Autobiographies of various masters, real masters, not those wanabees who have some experience, but are mostly just intellectuals. But real Masters that have powers beyond the normal level of popularly recognized human capacity. Like the 84 Mahasiddhas. They talk about the mutualness of recognition through the power of being pointed to it once there is readiness. Your whole idea of, "Having to go alone" is very dualistic, on even the subtlest level. By the stage I am talking about, you are so egoless, that you need lineage to point out the fact that you are egoless, so that you can play through an ego again in order to help properly with adequately empowered personality.

 

Anyway, get it or not. The intellect is a jungle in there!

Again I must disagree. Whether one "goes it alone" or "goes it" in terms of a lineage, there is already separation.

This all presupposes one who goes and somewhere to go.

One who desires to become, one who clings to a state other than what is already always there.

One who clings to a way to get there.

And all the baggage of your lineage and methods and the desired state is created by thought.

It is no good to you where "you" are "going".

All of that must be abandoned because all of that is what makes you a Buddhist rather than Buddha.

 

I recognize that you will never accept this as we've been through this before.

And there's no need for me to try to convince you of anything.

You have your chosen path and I wish you well in your travels.

[Vajrahridaya]

Again I must disagree. Whether one "goes it alone" or "goes it" in terms of a lineage, there is already separation.

This all presupposes one who goes and somewhere to go.

One who desires to become, one who clings to a state other than what is already always there.

One who clings to a way to get there.

And all the baggage of your lineage and methods and the desired state is created by thought.

It is no good to you where "you" are "going".

All of that must be abandoned because all of that is what makes you a Buddhist rather than Buddha.

 

You are speaking too soon of someone who gets it without actually being so.

 

If you don't see lineage directly, if you don't see into the sub-levels of being directly and think lineage is just a bunch of baggage, it's not that you will never understand what I'm talking about, but just until you let go of you being important, having an experience that is worth anything. You will not know how to bow to another as yourself. You will not connect to the Dharma kingdom that has already come before you have recognized a thing about being yourself. You're too caught up in this, "I" and "my" about a path to freedom which has already been attained by countless beings before you.

[Vajrahridaya]

Countless!

 

p.s. Lineage helps you at the time of death as well.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Aaron]

Oh, I don't wish to see anyone live according to how I see fit.

 

I'm just here sharing a view. If it invalidates another's view? They can choose the reaction according to how they wish to be about it, up to you to react fanatically telling me I'm a fanatic, or... debate the point? Or, put me on ignore, walk away, whatever.

 

I'm not nearly as attached to my views as people assume. There are 7 billion people on this planet and not everyone is going to agree with me, at all, in fact, very few will. I can just support my view endlessly through whatever quotes as well as experiential reflection, including reflection on the Buddhas "right view", the first and the most important of the 8 fold noble path, as it is the foundation of all the others.

 

I don't actually purposely invalidate views, it's just how people take what I say. Since obviously this is a fanatical thread 3bob is throwing directly at me personally, as well as maybe some others who have the same view as I. I just thought I might throw out a different view of the whole thing.

 

It's your choice to react to it as you will. 3bob is obviously emotionally attached to his view and is very reactive to some of my posts as well as Michaelz posts, and Xabirs posts.

 

We are not the fanatics, honestly. I know these people better than that.

 

We are just sharing a view, take it or leave it. This is a discussion board, no one is really going to be coming up to me asking me things. People take this stuff far to seriously. I just enjoy writing when challenged. That's just my personality type "A" Aries, whatever. I'm actually not dogmatic in person at all, I accept all people and love all people, of all types.

 

p.s. Actually some do come up to me and ask me things in PM, and actually agree with my views in private rather than in public, including Matt Black.

 

Matt Black is a big heart and expresser of the 4 immeasurables. He's a good balance here. He has a different personality from me. He is awesome!

 

 

Hello Vaj,

 

I think most Buddhists here disagree with your views of Buddhism, they are just actual Buddhists, so rather than say this, they follow the teachings of Buddha and don't criticize you. Those that follow your lead are most likely not actual Buddhists, but rather people who have a misunderstanding of what Buddhism teachers or have twisted it to serve their own behavior. This is the problem I see with many fanatics, they justify their actions, take minimal responsibility, even then often giving some excuse for that, and essentially do whatever they want to do under the auspice of Buddha's teachings.

 

So, you can mock a race, addicts, people, and religions, because you're not attached, so it's alright. You can do whatever you want, so long as you're not attached to those actions. You can be a complete pompous ass, just so long as you aren't attached, and thereby waive your obligation to right speech and right action, because, of course, you follow the most important of the eightfold path, right view, which is really the only important one.

 

Of course any Buddhist who heard someone say this would find it perplexing how someone could come to this understanding, but perhaps that's just me.

 

I am attached to this conversation, in the sense that I know you're giving a twisted interpretation of Buddhism and that your actions do more harm than good, at least in others perception of Buddhism. They see what you and your motley crue do and they think that's an example of what Buddhism is, when it isn't.

 

My own advice is that people should go to their local temple if they want to learn about Buddhism and not an online forum. Forums are best for people who already know about the subject enough that they can spot the BS.

 

Aaron