OT: Why, o why do they always end up here in the Bay Area?

[Jerry Freeman]

Well, all right, then.

Thank you. I owe you one.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Lorenzo]

[fatveg]

Finally one of the things I decided a long time
ago, FWIW, is that when people talk the talk, but don't
walk the walk, I don't really care what they say. Best

Two days back on the board and I'm in a religious discussion! Still, at least this one seems well-mannered.

Actually, I agree with virtually everything Jim, and Jerry, have said. The reason I jumped in on this one was I objected really to the context, which I saw as:

Weeks jabs at newage hippie woman -> general to-ing and fro-ing about newage-type viewpoints -> discussion of cults -> expression of the admitted flaws of some western Buddhist leaders

I kind of got the idea of 'oh yeah, look at the deluded non-(Judeo)Christians, the crazy things they believe and the evil leaders they have -- aren't they a bunch of deluded fools'. OK, I know no-one said that, but that was the feel that came over.

There's a basic falacy (IMHO) that is prevalent over here that somehow the Judeo-Christian viewpoint is somehow more 'rational' than eastern religions or newage mixes. I don't see that, to my mind christianity relies as much on a supernatural, even superstitious basis as our friend Lilith and her wiccan/goddess beliefs. Why is belief in God more rational than the Goddess? Why is believing in astrology superstition but believing the OT Bible-stories (or a piece of theologically dodgy extrapolation like the rapture) not?

Also, deeply flawed leaders are as prevalent in christianity as they are anywhere else. It's part of human nature, I'm sure. My catholic friends have been beaten up enough about this lately, but we can go back a lot further. How do Lutherans or Calvinists square the faith they love with the murderous men who they are named after? Should I reject my Lutheran friends because I despise the actions of the man who founded the church? Even more so, should I reject all of Luther's teachings as coming out of the mouth of a murderer?

These are difficult issues, and I struggle with them whenever I learn about the lives of great teachers. And what about Wagner, Sinatra, or, for that matter, Shane McGowan (desparate attempt to get closer to board topic?).

Anyway, this isn't aimed at anyone in particular, just a ramble. Much more elequently expressed in this fantastic song: http://www.jillsobule.com/Media/Heroes.mp3 <-- Click it, you might like it! Lyrics at http://www.jillsobule.com/songs/pinkpearl/hereos.html

'veg

[The Weekenders]

Aw, you just wanna make trouble.

[jim stone]

Yeah, give me a break. I'm a Buddhist.

There is, I think, a special dynamic that can take
place when westerners find eastern religion.It involves credulity to the point of insanity.
Of course that certainly exists in western
religion, without any help from the East.
But there's this remarkable thing: critical people
who think that Western religion is a crock can
swallow the most amazing stuff when it's
spoken by somebody oriental in robes.

Also however rotten Western religion might
be, typically the leader doesn't maintain that
he's God (with at least one notable exception
a couple of millenia ago; and that one might
have been God). Or that he's a reincarnatation
of a Bodhisatva, beyond good and evil.
Or that he's attained a
state, enlightenment, which places him beyond
moral evaluation.

You get a kind of weird cultural dislocation,
so that ordinarily skeptical people simply
can't field or rationally evaluate
what they're dealing with. And the people
on the other side are saying: 'Yum!'

You put it all together and things get amazingly heady.
In 72 I travelled by bus to the ashram of one
of the most famous gurus in India and America,
in the foothills of the Himalayas. He was an
elderly fellow, who died a few months later.
On the bus I
met a Canadian woman, about 30, intelligent,
educated, quite ordinary and presentable. She had
arranged a private audience with the guru.
When she emerged from it she said:

'I know now that he's God.'

'How do you know?'

'When I went in for the private interview
I was thinking about sex,
and the first thing he did was grab my tits!'

And that was just the beginning....

[Jerry Freeman]

I think what may be at work in this discussion is the fact that "the real thing" (whatever that is) is something very rare.

Wherever one looks, what predominates will be something else or something less than whatever ideal it protrays itself to be, regardless of what religious or spiritual tradition one investigates.

Based on what I've seen and investigated myself, I can't accept the idea that there's something fundamentally wrong at the basis of any spiritual tradition or system that has endured the centuries.

Because we're talking about the activities of large numbers of human beings, I think it's inevitable that the vast majority of practitioners, leaders and followers alike, in any given tradition will be "deluded" to a greater or lesser degree and that there will be all kinds of practices and behaviors in the name of that tradition that are regretable and have nothing whatever to do with its true, ultimate ideals and goals.

However, this doesn't mean there isn't yet a core of profound truth at the center.

As I said before, I believe it's the responsibility of the student or seeker to keep focused on the project at hand and not be distracted, either by allowing oneself to become absorbed in the superficial elements and forget themselves, or by deciding that, since wherever one looks, one finds flaws, none of it is any good and therefore, the project as a whole gets abandoned. I believe the person who chooses to become cynical and reject the search is just as tragic as the person who chooses to abandon their judgment and gets lost in delusion.

The razor's edge is a good metaphor because one can fall off either side, and the vast majority do fall off. That just seems to be the way of it.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[fatveg]

It involves credulity to the point of insanity.

Can't say I disagree with much of what you say. No, I'm not after a fight

I'm agreeing with you wholeheartedly on the fact that people loose their heads when it comes to religion and spirituality.

I just don't see that as an exclusively 'westerners into eastern religion' issue.

I could give many examples of westerners into western religion that also would come into the category of "credulity to the point of insanity"

I'm a pastors son, was a leader of the CU at uni, was a housegroup leader for an evangelical church and leader of the music group.

I left the christian faith as practiced today because to my mind most people were stretching "credulity to the point of insanity". I was being asked (no, told) to believe things that no sane person could.

I got into this discussion because you touched on a subject which I have struggled with and find fascinating: how can spiritually developed people also be such flawed humans. I was also worried that your (accurate, but selective) description of Rinpoche does not address the profound teaching he left behind. If you just write off Rinpoche as being an egotistical alcoholic then you are missing much of what his life offered.

I understand that, like me, you're a Buddhist. I agree wholeheartedly that the core of Buddhism (like Quakerism) is that you have to find your own path -- my favorite Zen saying is 'If you see the Buddha, kill the Buddha'. I also assume that you are a westerner -- so you know that eastern philosophy can be meaningful to us.

I don't deny the abuses you catalogue, or the credulity of seekers. It's just not confined to eastern (or for that matter newage*) religions.

Metta,

'veg


* rhymes with...

[fatveg]

Aw, you just wanna make trouble.

hey -- you started it :roll:

[Lorenzo]

Yes, isn't that what it all really boils down to--a tit for a tat--when it comes to religious beliefs? What really makes one school of spiritual/religious thinking better than another? It probably all has just enough truth mixed in to give it the appearance of legitimacy. Isn't escapism all designed to make us feel better, whether there's any truth to it or not? I doubt if many people would deny that denial of earthy reality is beneficial to a degree.

[jim stone]

I think we're largely in agreement.
I have strong feelings because I saw a good deal
of Chogyam and the people around him.
I didn' like what I saw.

I think there are highly intelligent charismatic people
who can talk the talk, who can say insightful
things, and who are predators. One of the most
compelling guru figures I met in India
said all sorts of remarkable things, he was brilliant,
and he was a positively evil man and
he knew it.

Insight is cheap. Talk is cheap.
I can say all sorts of insightful things.
If you sit and meditate enough you
get all sorts of insights, yes? And then they
go away.
Plainly Buddhist practice is labor intensive,
and I have a bottom line--if I'm going to
work my butt off it must be for something that
will at least make me a kinder and more decent
fellow. If it won't at least make me a better
man, I don't have time.

If enlightenment is consistent with the level
of moral depravity that I've witnessed
among many of these 'enlightened' people,
then I'm not interested in it, and Buddhism
is, for me, a waste of time, indeed, a
false religion.

So I don't think these people are enlightened.
Nor did the Buddha, who said that one of
the marks of enlightened people is that
they are 'well established in virtue.'
They keep the precepts, they are sexually
responsible, they don't abuse alcholol,
they are patient, kindly, compassionate...

Above all, they are at least as decent as are most
people who have never practiced
a moment in their lives.

Maybe one can learn from what these people
say--but that doesn't mean they're enlightened.
Insight is easy; it's letting go that's hard.
Everybody wants to go to heaven, but
nobody wants to die.

Once in India it came over me that I was dying,
and then I died, but the body and the mind
went on--but there was nobody in it.
This went on for days; I knew what it meant.
I was a saint.

So I traveled to Buddha Gaya where meditation
retreats were in progress, presented myself
to the teacher, an Indian fellow, Munindra, who
had studied in Burma. I demanded to lecture
the meditation retreat on the nature of enlightenment.
Munindra looked at me in horror.

'I can't let you do that!' he gasped.

Being an enlightened saint, I became very
angry. 'How dare you keep these people from the
truth!'

Munindra started to respond angrily, then he blinked
twice (noting, anger, anger) and said:
'I have no wish to keep people from the truth.
You may lecture the meditation course.'

So I did. It went brilliantly. I said all sorts of
insightful things, I was much more clever,
interesting and insightful than Munindra.
The students loved it. Munindra asked me to
give more talks...but I had no more interest,
my ego trip having been satisfied.

I ask you, who was closer to enlightenment,
me or Munindra? Best

[Lorenzo]

You haven't defined enlightenment.

[fatveg]

I think we're largely in agreement.

Yup.

Metta.


'veg

[fatveg]

I doubt if many people would deny that denial of earthy reality is beneficial to a degree.

that's why God invented Guinness.

[Lorenzo]

Ah yes, the true spirits indeed! No pretenders in this world. And Scotch? Moderation in all things, even the spirit world.

[jim stone]

You haven't defined enlightenment.

In the Theravada, which is the surviving school of classical
Buddhism as preserved in Pali (and what I know
best), there are several
stages of enlightenment. But basically the idea
is that there is no more craving, aversion, or delusion.
Grasping after conditioned things (that is, things
which arise on account of causes, like the body
or these present experiences) ceases. There is
a deep realization that there is no persisting
self, indeed, no subject of experiences.
There is thought but no thinker, actions but
no agent. In effect, the 'self-cherishing I' is
gone because there is insight that nothing
like it exists in reality. I guess one might view
it as death in life. In the final stage of enlightenment,
even the potentiality for craving,
aversion, and delusion are uprooted.

Buddhism isn't a very nice religion.
The central doctrine is pretty terrifying;
if you think, 'I don't like this one bit'
or 'why would anybody want that?'
you are beginning to understand it. Best